1920-03-23

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.


Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister):: With the consent of the House I should like to propose a motion, which I shall explain in a few words. In the first session of 1919 a resolution proposed by the member for London (Mr. Cronyn) was adopted by the House approving the appointment of a committee on scientific research. On the motion of Hon. Dr. Reid, a committee was appointed. That committee made certain inquiries and on
July 1, 1919, submitted a report which contained the following recommendation:
Tour committee would therefore recommend that the committee should be reappointed as early as possible next session to give further consideration to this matter, and to prepare to the House for consideration proposals dealing therewith.
The committee had been unable to complete its 'investigations; accordingly this recommendation was made. The report was adopted by the House and the recommendation for the reappointment of the committee, therefore approved. The session of last autumn was called for special legislation, and it was not considered best that the committee should be reappointed for that session. At the beginning of the present session I went into the matter, and with a view to carrying out the recommendation of the committee and the wish of the Howse as expressed by its approval of that report, I beg to move:
That a special committee be appointed forthwith to consider the matter of the development in Canada of scientific research with power to call for persons, papers and records to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time ; that rule 11 be suspended in connection therewith, and that the following persons do constitute such committee:	Messieurs Archambault, Btland, Cowan, Cronyn, Denis, Manion, Maclean (Halifax), MoGibbon (Mus-koka), Nicholson (Algoma), Pardee, Ross (Middlesex), Sheard, Sinclair (Antigonish and Guysboro), Steele, Thompson (Yukon), Tweedie, and Whidden.
That is practically the Committee of last year, with some additions.


Mr. SPEAKER:: There having been no notice of this motion, it requires, of course, the unanimous consent of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. W. ROWELL (Minister of Health) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 32, respecting Commercial Feeding Stuffs.
Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain,


Mr. ROWELL:: This is merely a revision of the existing law with the necessary amendments to bring it up to date. The provisions relating to commercial feeding stuffs which now appear in the Adulteration of Foods Act, have been taken out of that Act and are tq. be included in this, so that the one Act will cover the whole matter.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



CANADA'S CONTRIBUTION TO LEAGUE OP NATIONS.

Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: Out of what appropriation was the sum of 564,043.15 paid on February 13 as Canada's contribution to the expense of the League of Nations?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It was paid out of the Demobilization Vote.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres):: ' I should like to direct the attention of the Government to some orders for returns standing in my name which were adopted by the House last session. I refer to an order of September 18, 1919, regarding the Siberian Expeditionary Force; an order of September 29, regarding the Military Hospital at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, and an order of October 20, calling for a list of Grand Trunk shareholders. On the 10th of November, the last day of the session, I was assured by the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Doherty) and the then Secretary of State (Hon. Mr. Burrell) that these returns would be forthcoming. I, now ask that they be brought down as soon as possible.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I will make inquiry and if they are get-atable I shall have them brought down almost immediately.


Joseph Archambault: I was assured last year that they would' be available.



SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Air. Boivin in the Chair.
Marine Department. Government shipbuilding programme-amount required for the construction of vessels in accordance with Government programme, $20,000,000.
Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine):: 
Mr. DEVLIN:: Could the minister give
the dates of the different contracts?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am sorry I cannot, at the present moment, give the hon. member the information he desires, but I shall be very glad to get it for him if he so wishes. The contracts are spread over a period from, we shall say, March or April, 1918, up to within a few weeks ago. The average cost of these 63 vessels, including the contracts that were let during the war and since the armistice was signed, is $191.92 per ton. During the war contracts were let at from $180 per ton for the larger vessels to 5215 per ton.for the lake size. Since the armistice has been signed, we have been able to contract for the large size at 5167.50 per ton and for the lake size at $180.
The contracts have been placed with the following	yards:
Canadian	Vickers, Ltd.-
Ships.	Tons.	Tone.	Tons.2	4,575	9,15010	8,390	83,900
93,050
Harbour Marine Company, Victoria-
2	8,390	16,780
Collingwood Shipbuilding Company

7	3,890	27,230
Kingston Shipbuilding Company-
2	3,890	7,780
Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company-
4 3,400	13,600	
2 4,375	8,750	
1 3,890	3,890	26,240
Halifax Shipyards,	Ltd.-	
2 10,800	21,600	
2 8 390	16,780	38,380
Tidewater Shipbuilders Ltd.-		
4 5,100		20,400
Davie Shipbuilding-	Company-	
2 5,100	10,200	
1 8,390	8,390	18,590
British American Shipbuilding Company-
Ships. Tons.	Tons.	Tons.
2 4,575		9,150
Midland Shipbuilding	Company-	
1 3,890		3,890
Dominion Shipbuilding	Company-	
2 3,500		7,000
J. Goughian & Son-		
6 8,390		50,340
Wallaoe Shipyards, Ltd.-		
2 4,575	9,150	
2 5,100	10,200	
2 8,390	16,780	
36,130
Prince Rupert Shipbuilding Company-
2	8,390	16,780
Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company-
3	2,800	8,400
Then as to deliveries made: 7 ships have been completed of type No. 2, 8,300 tons; 4 ships have been completed of type No. 3, 5,100 tons; 4 ships have been completed of type No. 4, 4,500 tons; 8 ships have been completed of type No. 5, 3,400 to 3,900 tons, and 1 ship has been completed of type No. 6, 2,800 tons. Of the 8,300 ton type, 5 are being equipped with oil fuel apparatus and 13 of the same type are being fitted with refrigerating space.
The expenditure to date is as follows: Total payments up to April, 1919, $19,510,322.35; total payments from April, 1919 to March 1, 1920, -$24,194,639.78-grand total, $43,704,962.13. Balance available on March 1, 1920, from vote for current year, $15,505,361.22.
There has been some criticism in the press, but very little I am happy to say, in regard to the cost of the Government ships, and 1 wish to take advantage of this occasion to make a comparison between our cost and the cost of ships contracted for in Canada by the Imperial Munitions Board for Great Britain, also the cost of ships built for Great Britain in foreign countries, and the cost of similar types of steel ships built in the United States.


Mr. DUFF:: Would the minister be good enough to give us the date of the last contract he made?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It was about a
month ago; I cannot give the exact date at


CARGOES CARRIED FROM PACIFIC PORTS.
[Stage Direction]
"Canadian Volunteer"-Genoa Bay to Gars-ton, England, 2,085,5'69 feet of lumber.
"Canadian Trooper"-Vancouver to London, 1,956,216 feet of lumber.
''Canadian Aviator"-Vancouver to Garston, England, 1,934,938 feet of lumber.
"Canadian Raider"-Genoa Bay to Melbourne, 2,005,857 feet of lumber.
"Canadian Importer"-Vancouver to Melbourne, general cargo, consisting principally of the following:
Corsets frrfm the Dominion Corset Company, Quebec.
[Stage Direction]
Sewing machines from Cleveland.
Rubber tires from the Goodyear Rubber Company, Toronto.
Underwear from Hamilton.
Bicycles from Western Ontario.
Newsprint from the Canadian Export Paper Company.
Chocolates from Toronto.
Newsprint from Powell River Company, British Columbia.
Canned Herrings from the Canadian Fishing Company.
Mantles, lumber, laths, whitelead, etc., from various shippers.
This will give some idea of what a general cargo means.
Referring to our smaller vessels that are on the West Indian route, hon. members will be interested to know the vast quantities of raw sugar that were brought from the West Indies to Montreal, Halifax, and St. John, N.B. If it had not been for the Canadian Government ships I think I can say that there would have been a sugar shortage in this country. The sugar carried from the West Indies to St. John and Halifax was 47,266 tons. The total tonnage at present loaded and en route to St. John and Halifax is 14,155 tons. In addition to the above these vessels have undertaken to load before the end of April and deliver at Canadian ports 28,400 tons making a grand total of 89,821 gross tons valued at $13,164,160.40.
The number of voyages that ourv ships have made is as follows:

[Stage Direction]
To West Indies . . . .		Voyages. .. 27
To Buenos Ayres . .		. . 4
To London 			
To Liverpool			. . 9
To Glasgow			. . 1
To United Kingdom	from Van-	
couver, via Panama	Canal . .	. . 3
To Bordeaux			. . 1
To Havre			. . 1
To Australia and New	Zealand	. . 1
To St. John's, Newfoundland .		[DOT] ' 4
		56
I now come to what must be the most interesting part to hon. members and to the public generally. It is not often that ships, railways or other things are managed and operated by governments in such a way as to show a balance on the right side, but I am happy to say that from the figures I will give in the moment you will see that although 19 of these ships have only been in commission for a short time, not one of them having been in commission for a full year, the balance is on the right side. I wish to explain how the net earnings are arrived at. The Canadian Government Merchant Marine follow good business practice.

They had to put on a new organization and to open up new trade routes. After providing for organization, overhead expenses, operating expenses, depreciation, insurance and five and a half per cent on cost, the ships have made a remarkably good showing.
I think it is only fair that as Minister of Marine, and on behalf of the Government of Canada, I should pay a tribute to Mr. D. B. Hanna and his board of directors of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for having accomplished such a fine result as I am going to refer to in a moment, not withstanding all the difficulties inseparable from new routes and a new organization. I am immensely pleased as the minister responsible, so is the Government, and I am sure that hon. members and the people of Canada will also be pleased. The profit statement is as follows:	.
Up to the end of December, 1919, there were delivered 19 steamers. Many of these were received during the late summer and fall, so that only 13 had completed voyages by the end of the year. As already mentioned, routes were opend to South America, West Indies and the United Kingdom. By December 31 28 voyages had been ,completed. The total gross earnings of all boats amounted to $3,448,030.25, and the net earnings to $1,406,000. This net will provide interest at 5J per cent on the Government's investment, full reserve for depreciation and a handsome margin in addition. These earnings are held by the company in the shape of bank balances, Victory bonds and accounts receiyable. In view of the fact that many of the boats were only in service for a portion of the year, and also as the initial expenses in placing boats in commission are extremely heavy, I- think you will agree with me that the operations of the Government's Merchant Marine present an exceedingly satisfactory showing.
It will be of interest, I am sure, to the House to know that the Government boats enabled the exportation of Canadian products last year to the value of $21,362,000, much of which would not have been shipped if the shipping facilities had not been provided by the Government.
It will be also interesting to know that since the first of the year, the shipyards on the Pacific Coast have delivered three boats, the " Canadian Raider," the " Canadian Importer," and the " Canadian Exporter," all of which will be employed in the Canadian-Australian trade. The " Canadian Raider " and " Canadian Importer " have already sailed with a full cargo of

lumber in the one case, and a full cargo of confectionery, newsprint, lumber, rubber tires, etc., in the other.
The " Canadian Exporter " is loading at the present time. It'is expected that with the service which the Canadian Government Merchant Marine will be able to provide between Canada, Australia and New Zealand very important business will be established.
I wish also to explain how the Government transferred these ships, built and paid for by public money, to the Canadian. Government Merchant Marine. By Order in Council these ships were transferred to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine at the, contract' price. In lieu of that the Canadian Government Merchant' Marine issued notes payable to the honourable the Minister of Finance bearing interest at thfe rate of 5i per cent. It is incumbent upon the Canadian Government Merchant Marine not only to meet the interest on the cost of construction on these vessels at 5J per cent but also to pay the principal from time to time out of earnings. I am very happy to announce that notwithstanding, as I have already explained, that only v19 vessels were for a portion of the year in commission, yet, out of earnings the Canadian Government Merchant Marine have issued a cheque to the consolidated revenue fund of Canada for $500,000 which meets the interest at the rate of 5i per cent up to the end of December 31,	1919. Hon.
members will see that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine are paying their way although they have hardly got started.
It may interest hon. members to know' what our sister Dominion of Australia is doing. Australia has half our population but is still a nation of great vision, energy and capability. Here is what Australia has done with regard to shipbuilding:
Australian Shipbuilding Programme.
In the early days of the war, Australia acquired by purchase 15 second hand Brit ish vessels with a tonnage of approximately
100,000	tons. In addition the Commonwealth Government undertook a local building programme The original programme provided for the construction of 24 steel vessels of about 5,500 tons deadweight each and 24 wooden vessels of about 2,600 tons do'i Jweight each. A second programme v^as subsequently undertaken which provided for the construction of 14 steel ships of about 6,000 tons deadweight each. In addition contracts were placed by the Australian Government for the construction of
6 vessels in United Kingdom yards of about
12.000	tons deadweight.
When Australia completes her programme she will possess a total tonnage of 348,400 tons net, a very good merchant marine for our .-overseas Dominions to have.
William Duff: Before the minister leaves
the subject of net profits, will he be good enough to tell us how much of the profits has been set aside to. rest account for depreciation.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have not with me at the present time all the details of the organizations' bookkeeping.


William Duff: Could the minister give the *gross amount?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That has been set aside to rest account?


William Duff: Yes, to rest account for depreciation.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am sorry I cannot give that information at the moment. I have given the gross earnings and the net earnings, and explained how these sums were arrived at, but just ihow much has been set aside to rest account I cannot say. I know that up to to-day the organization has in the bank, in the shape of cash and victory bonds, the large amount of one and one-half millions, but just what portion of that has been set aside for depreciation I cannot at present state. However, I shall endeavour to get the information for the hon. gentleman before the discussion on this item is finished.


William Duff: I would like to have the information if possible before the debate closes.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is that over and above
the $500,000 cheque that was placed with the Department of Finance?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The cheque of $500,000 was paid out of the net earnings as I have stated.	\


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I might state that since asking for the dates of the contracts, I have received the desired information.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I now come to another important adjunct of shipping, and that is the establishment of a steel plate mill and the contract entered into by the Dominion Steel Corporation with the Government. The contract calls for 250,000 tons of ship plates, the Government obligating themselves on their part to take 50,000 tons per year for a period of five years with the

the present time has bright prospects of becoming very much bigger and greater.
That brings me to the question of subsidies. I am not going to say anything in that regard, further than that the Government have the matter under their careful consideration. The Minister of Finance, when he brings down his Budget will state, in the Government's behalf, whether or not they can see their way clear to do anything to aid the shipbuilding industry in Canada. However it will be gratifying to hon. gentlemen to know that notwithstanding the fact that Canadian shipbuilders have absolutely no protection of any kind they have been able under existing conditions to secure foreign orders in competition with shipbuilders in the Old Land.
The National Shipbuilding Company of Three Kivers-the constituency which is so worthily represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau)-is at the present time engaged in the construction of six ships of
5,000	tons deadweight each, three' of 3,200 tons each and two of 6,500 tons deadweight each for foreign registry. These orders were secured from France by the National Shipbuilding ''Company of Three Eivers in competition with the world. Canadian Vickers, Limited, of Montreal, also in competition with the world, secured a contract from Norway for the construction of two steel vessels of 8,000 tons deadweight each. The Collingwood Shipbuilding Company have secured the contract for the construction of a vessel of canal size for the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, to be employed in foreign waters. That may seem to indicate that our shipbuilders can now compete with the world, on account of the conditions that I have referred to. But I am not so optimistic as to say that one or two years from now they would be able to do so without any assistance whatever.
I desire to pay a tribute to those of our Canadians who have had to do with the building of these ships. They were not skilled in the building of ships when steel shipbuilding was comrhenced on a large scale some two or three years ago. But although the designs of the ships which are being turned out in the yards from Halifax to Prince Kupert are British, the materials and workmanship are Canadian, and Canadians have demonstrated their skill in shipbuilding as they have in other walks of life, just as when the call of their country came they displayed their adaptation to military life, and their bravery in the field of battle.
Our ships are equal in design, workmanship and efficiency to any ships of the same kind that are built in the old land. I have covered the programme as fully as I have been able to; if hon. members desire to ask any questions I shall be only too pleased to answer them.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I should not
have intervened in this debate so suddenly had my hon. friend not seemed to be rather inclined, in respect of my humble efforts of a moment ago, to throw out to me a challenge across the floor. But there was not the slightest' need of that, because as he proceeded with his statement I felt that it would be my duty, if I did say anything, to express my admiration of its remarkable lucidity and arrangement and of the evident effort which the minister made to make the whole Chamber hear him-an effort in which I am glad to say that so far as I was concerned he was perfectly successful.
There were one or two points in my hon. friend's' statement which attracted my attention, upon which I made a note or two and upon which I think I am able to base a little advice to the minister, if I may be permitted to give it. I listened with interest to his statement as to the ten-year periods. I did not quite catch his figures, but I heard him say at the end that there had been a very great shrinkage in shipbuilding. I do not think that I misunderstood my hon. friend.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If my hon. friend
will allow me, I pointed out the very reverse of that. I was endeavouring to convey an impression of the magnitude of the wooden shipbuilding business away, back in 1875, and to show, by reference to ten-year periods, how the shipbuilding industry of Canada had declined from 1875 until recent years, when it had regained the big tonnage of that earlier period.


Michael Clark: That is exactly as I understood my hon. friend; that from 1875 until the most recent period there had been a shrinkage in the shipping of Canada. I understood him perfectly, and he will see why I was very glad so to understand him, as I am a strict follower of truth in these matters. May I point out to my hon. friend, who has always been a strong supporter of the National Policy, though he supported it under the name of Liberal, that from 1875 until the recent period of the war is the period covered by the National Policy?


An hon. MEMBER:: 1878.


Michael Clark: Hon gentlemen may console themselves all they can with



those three years. So that my hon. friend (Mr. Ballantyne) of all men, comes before us to point out that under the National Policy the shipbuilding of Canada shrank.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the hon. member will allow me a question


Michael Clark: My hon. friend talked for a long time; he will have to listen to me for a little while now. I am not surprised to have heard the minister make the statement that he did; indeed, I knew that it must be so. The United States, as I have often pointed out in the House, set out in the middle of the last century to be a great competitor of Great Britain in shipping, but in the middle oi that century she went in for a national policy of her own and drove herself from the ocean. When Nova Scotia had the shipping, before the period of 1875, to which my hon. friend refers with pride, she had a nominal tariff. So it must always be; shrinkage is sure to take place under restriction. It is under freedom that expansion takes place. So far as the sea is concerned, the two little islands, specks in the German ocean, have given an example to the world of what freedom will do for shipbuilding which has never been equalled and cannot and never will be surpassed. They built and owned before the war more than half the entire shipping of the globe.
Now, it may be desirable that we should have a shipbuilding policy in Canada, and it may not; but the facts to which I have just drawn attention surely have a most important bearing upon what the policy of the Government is to be with regard to a continuance of Government shipbuilding.
I was touched by the pathos of the appeal' which my hon. friend made to the manufacturers of Canada. He said: " For goodness sake, buck up and export some." My hon. friend is no better than Pharaoh; he wants the manufacturers of Canada to make bricks without straw. If you exclude imports to your shores you just as certainly prevent exports from your shores. As a general principle of trade that is as certain as any of the Ten Commandments, and. as safe.
I observed as I listened to my hon. friend that lumber bulked very largely in his very interesting list of the goods that these Canadian ships have been carrying. What is the lesson of that? It is that if .Canada is to meet her enormous liabilities in this reconstruction period, and her financial commitments abroad, Canada's exports must consist very largely of raw materials and food for years to come. The Minister

of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) and the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) know what I mean. I may expand this line of thought if I am permitted to make a few remarks upon the Budget; but men of the highest prominence in the financial world in this country, men at the heads of our banks, have been pointing out that, to meet our financial obligations abroad, this country must have a surplus export of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200,000,000 for some years to come. I do not wonder that my hon. friend wants to see tour export- trade expand; but that export trade, I repeat, must expand, if we are to reach solvency and prosperity as a nation, in the shape of food and raw materials. My hon friend does not for a moment expect that there is going to be any shrinkage in our export of food and raw materials, does he? He. does not expect our wheat fields to produce less; he does not expect our western-farms to produce a smaller quantity of stock; he does not expect our huge forests to put out less lumber. Will my hon. friend answer me a question, and this all has a bearing upon the advice which I wish to tender very modestly to the Government? If we are to export manufactured goods and food and raw material, we cover the whole field of commerce; what is my hon. friend going to bring in? Ships to be profitably run must carry goods both ways. I -am not. referring to war time; I am referring to times of peace. Does my hon. friend want to build up a shipping industry composed entirely of an export traffic? In that case, I want to tell him that will not be a paying line of shipping; ships want cargoes both ways. I hope my hon. friend and the Government generally will pay very great attention to the question I have just put if they are going to embark upon any further business of shipping. If you export manufactured goods, food and raw materials, what are you going to bring in? The answer is-nothing, and you . are going to commit yourselves to a shipping policy which is to be made a paying proposition by conveying goods only one way.
With regard to my hon. friend's statement, as I said before, I have not the least idea of attacking him or his policy in any way. In the period, of the -world through which we are passing, that man best .serves his country who seeks for occasion to commend where possible rather than to criticize, who seeks for occasion to construct rather than to destroy.
I want to congratulate my hon. friend that he has come out of this business as

well as he has, despite his figures which were somewhat homeopathic in dosage about the cost of plates. I am just going to permit myself to reiterate an opinion I expressed last year; that some of his bargains for steel plates were, to say the least, not very profitable. I hope that is not a very far departure from the desire to help which, I have just indicated, animates my bosom.
As I think I gathered from my hon. friend, he is not in favour of government ownership as. applied to ships. I rather thought I gathered that that was his policy and the policy of the Government. In that case there would be no need of advice from-me, because I should find myself absolutely at one with the Government. I think the sound principle in regard to government-ownership is this:-Where public services aie, in their real nature, a monopoly, then they might be profitably and wisely managed for the whole of the people; if they are a monopoly, then their profits ought to redound to the whole public. But if there is a possibility of competition, then the matter should be left to private enterprise.


An hon. MEMBER:: Railroads.


Michael Clark: Did I hear
someone whisper " railroads?" The defense of the policy of nationalization of railroads was a two-fold one; that whether you believed in the principle or not, the things were in such a condition in Canada that you had to take them, willy-nilly. But I do not want to take refuge behind an answer of that kind. Railroads are in this country at the present time virtually a monopoly. Does any hon. gentleman in this House contend that there is real competition betwen our railroads as regards passenger and freight rates? Freight and passenger lates are both controlled in old England, controlled by Act of Parliament. I contend that railroads are in their nature a monopoly, and I anticipated the interruption and am grateful to my hon. -friend for giving me an opportunity to vindicate my own consistency. In the case of ships, no one will urge the same contention. Wherever you have a seaboard and ports, you can have ships built by private enterprise, building them in one port here, in another there and in another further on and so on all round your coast. That is the piinciple I should apply; that is the way I should look at the principle of government ownership, and, therefore, I contend 404	,
that this business is not one for the Government to extend.
Here, let me say-and this is by way of emphasizing and driving home things that I have already hinted at-whether success is attained in shipbuilding or not depends entirely upon fiscal policy. An admiral giving evidence before a United States Congress committee said not long ago:	"We
had better make up our minds whether uTe really wa.nt a merchant marine or not. If we do want a merchant marine, there is only one straight course to having it and that is by having free trade." Every one who has studied, the subject knows that, and I enforce it by the simple argument I made in reply to the minister when I rose on this floor to-day. Shipbuilding will be successful or unsuccessful according to your fiscal policy. If you have a tariff barrier round your shores, you will never be a great shipping nation whatever else you may rise to. History proves that and will continue to demonstrate it unless the world gets more rapidly wise than it has done up to now, although I am extremely hopeful upon that subject because changes are happening very rapidly in the world at the present moment, in the field of politics, in the field of commerce, and in the field- of enterprise of all kinds. My point is this:	If you have the right fiscal
policy, private enterprise will build your ships; if you have a wrong fiscal policy, then neither Government nor private enterprise can build ships for long successfully.
It is elementary and obvious that two things are required for running ships. One is a sea-going traffic and the other is seamen. I have dealt with the one; what about the other? Seamen are naturally also the result of policy.
Nova Scotians in the early and middle portions of the nineteenth century liked the smell of the briny as well as the old country people did, but they lost the smell. The National Policy extinguished it. What is the condition in regard to seamen in the world to-day? There may be hon. memoer of this-House who do not know the fact- t am sure they will be pleased to hear it- that at the present moment in spite of all the drain of the war Great Britain has the finest and the most numerous set of marine officers and men that she has ever had in her history. The reason is very apparent. Liking the sea as they did, their was no compulsion in their choosing it in large numbers while the war was on. We know what Great Britain did on the sea while the war was on. Very large numbers of her

sons, instead of fighting in the trenches, [DOT] took themselves to the ocean. Fortunately, they are not needed any longer for fighting, but having got a taste of the briny, and the thing being in their blood anyhow, they are being drafted into the merchant marine. I just want to say this, and I am sure the House will not attribute any insular boastfulness to me on this point, that the Finance Minister, or any government of any country -who think that it is going to be an easy thing two or three years hence to compete with Great Britain, either in building, manning', or sailing ships, will have to waken up and change their fiscal policy.
We have heard a great deal about what the United States has done in shipbuilding. I was in Orillia last Friday, and as I came down on the train I met a returned soldier with whom I had a very interesting conversation. I very soon found out that he came from Boston. He had been an officer, and understood business conditions in the United States. I said to him, "You are building a lot of ships down there, aren't you?" "Yes," he said, "but our people are not very keen on the project because they find, taking conditions all round, it is going to be difficult for them to compete with Great Britain." No humbug about the average Yankee. That is the latest news I have direct from Boston as to the hopefulness of the United States people in being able to compete with Great Britain. I trust the Government will inform themselves fully along these lines before they embark upon any further shipbuilding enterprise, after this vote has been passed and after present contracts have been finished.
Something was said about subsidies by my hon. friend (Mr. Ballantyne) before he sat down. I have had no reason up to now to have the least doubt as 'to the financial sanity of the present 'Minister of Finance, and therefore I scarcely need to offer him any advice. He does not find money any too plentiful at the present moment; he has lots of holes for all the money he has got. I observe that Mr. Austen Chamberlain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain, has lately laid down a policy under two or three heads. One is the cessation of borrowing; the other is the establishment of a sinking fund to obliterate gradually the national debt. If projects like that have any attraction for my hon. friend, he will turn a very deaf ear indeed to people who are coming to him for subsidies for any purpose under the sun. What the country wants at the present moment is a

wise administration of the common law, a government that does not do so many things, but only does wise things when it does them, a government that will keep the tightest possible hold on the strings of the public purse. If the Government' will govern along these lines, keeping out of all foolish projects and turning a deaf ear to people who come to them for Government doles, and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will bring in an improvement in our system of taxation and an improvement in our fiscal policy, then I have sufficient faith in the people of this country, and in the country itself, to express my firm and sincere belief that in spite of all we have gone through as a young nation we shall before many years are over overtake some of the mistakes that have been made, and find ourselves in a splendid condition of national prosperity and financial stability.


Mr. EDMUND BRISTOL (Centre Toronto) :: Mr. Speaker, the matter before the House is of great national importance. I have listened to the breath of Cobdenism Which has floated across the Chamber today from my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), and I want to say to him and to other hon. gentlemen who entertain his views that a great many things have happened since Cobden was on this earth- things of very great importance to the British Empire, and of great importance to shipbuilding and other industries both in Great Britain and Canada.
I do not think that anybody in this House will for one moment combat the proposal of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) to complete his shipbuilding programme. I think the country is to be congratulated that we have as Minister of Marine a man who in addition to doing his share in the war, raising a regiment and going to the Front, has had a business career of which any man in this country might well be proud. I think as Canadians we are very proud indeed of having him as a member of this House and a member of the Government. What he has done for shipbuilding and shipping in Canada is a very remarkable achievement. Early in the war he decided that if the shipbuilding business was good enough for Great Britain to carry on in Canada, it was good enough for Canada to invest her money in, and he decided to have Canadian ships built in Canada in the interests of Canada. He went into the project, fearlessly, in spite of very severe criticism by many newspapers and by some hon. gentlemen opposite, and to-day he is

in this remarkable position, that he could sell his ships for more money than they cost, and in addition, in operating them he has made a substantial business profit. That is certainly a unique achievement in [DOT] the history of. governments, and it is one upon which the Minister of Marine and the Government and iMr. Hanna and the gentlemen who are operating these ships are to be congratulated, and for which they will receive the thanks of the people of this country. Not only that, but with unexampled foresight the Minister of Marine made a contract for steel plates with the Dominion Steel Company. My hon. friend from Red Deer has sneered at the National Policy and given as an example the failure of Nova Scotia to produce ships, but he was about twenty-five or thirty years behind the time in that observation, because the ships he was talking .of were wooden ships and they were disappearing as fast as they could after '74, '75 and '78, and steel ships were coming in.
The Government took measures to establish a steel plate industry in Canada in order to put Canada on her feet in the matter of shipbuilding. For shipbuilding you must have shipyards, steel plates, and skilled labour, and to-day through the efforts of the Minister of Marine and the ^Government we have these three requisites in Canada, and in splendid shape. Before this we were at the mercy of the United States for plates. Moreover, the Minister of Marine did not tell the whole story; he was too modest. If you try to order steel plate in the United States to-day you will find you cannot get them. The Minister of Marine made such a contract that to-day he is being offered higher prices than the Government is paying. He could sell his contract to-day for a million dollars without any effort. That is what he has done, and that is the kind of Government you are getting from business men associated with the business of the country.
Coming back to the shipbuilding industry, it is interesting to point out that when the war started we were building very few steel ships, and we should be grateful to Great Britain for what she has done through the Imperial Munitions Board towards establishing shipyards in this country, and developing the shipbuilding genius of Canadians who at that time were certainly not skilled in shipbuilding. These contracts were at comparatively high prices, which the minister informs us were higher than his prices, although wages and material were higher at the time he let his contracts. I agree with him, but I want to
point out that the Canadian workmen from the moment they started shipbuilding began to improve and are still improving and becoming more efficient and I venture to say that if the industry were accorded the care and protection which shook:': be given to any growing industry from its Inception and until it gets firmly on its feet- and that is apolicy whichl believeis a sound one-in five years from the present time the. Canadian shipbuilder will be just as good-as any workman in the British shipyards' who has been engaged in this occupation all his life. The Government took up the shipbuilding plan and the result of their operations, in conjunction with the efforts of the different shipbuilding yards, has been that these yards have been running to capacity, and the business,'started with perhaps a few million dollars, has to-day practically fifty million dollars invested in it. This industry has a payroll of forty million dollars, and over fifty million dollars is invested in subsidiary industries which are maintained for the supply of such accessories as engines, boilers and all the appurtenances that go to make up the ship apart from the hull. There are twenty-three or twenty-fbur thousand people employed in the industry proper, and twenty-three or twenty-four thousand in the subsidiary industries; and, making the usual allowances in 'an estimate of the number of people dependent on any industry, there are over two hundred thousand people to-day who derive their subsistence from shipbuilding in this country. In addition to this, a sum of over one hundred million dollars is invested m tins industry, and the dependent industries. These facts are of ihe greatest importance and call for the serious consideration of the people of Canada.
The interest in shipbuilding is very widespread in Canada, for there are two or three large yards in Nova Scotia, four or five in Quebec, five or six in Ontario, and three or four in British Columbia. Altogether, practically four-fifths of the people of the country are interested in the maintenance and upbuilding of our shipping industry.
Nov, what is the position of our industry relatively to that of the United States? I say fearlessly, and confirming what the minister has said, that we can to-day beat the United States in prices in shipbuilding, and with the deepening of the Welland Canal, which I trust will soon be accomplished, when we commence to build six hundred foot boats on the lakes, four or five years hence, we shall be able to equal if not surpass the American shipbuilders. My


Michael Clark: Does my hon. friend know that Lord Robert Cecil, the eminent British statesman, who may be Prime Minister any of these fine mornings, recently advised England and -the world that what we want to-day is to get rid of the war mind?


Edmund James Bristol: evidenced I am sure the Government will consult and consider in coming to any conclusion as to what is the best policy for the shipbuilding industry. I am glad that we have the distinguished gentleman who now occupies the position of Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) in charge of the shipping interests of this country, and I believe that he has associated with him those who will give this matter their most careful consideration and that the shipbuilding industry will receive fair play.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that we have all enjoyed greatly the excellent address which we have listened to from the hon. the Minister of Marine and Naval Affairs (Mr. Ballantyne) this afternoon. We also had much pleasure in hearing from that stalwart free trader the hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) and that stalwart believer in high protection the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol). With regard to the remarks of the Minister of Marine, I think most of us were greatly surprised when we received our copy of the Estimates yesterday and noticed the modest amount he is asking for. One of the reasons why I was surprised was that a few days ago I saw in one.of the newspapers, I think it was the Morning Chronicle of Halifax, the following desptach:
Hon. C. C. Ballantyne, Minister of Marine, announced to-night at the annual dinner of the Dominion Marine Association, held at the Windsor Hotel, that the Government has under consideration the building of passenger steamships of 15,000 gross tons in connection with the Canadian National Railways. Mr. Ballantyne briefly reviewed the operations of the Canadian Government merchant marine and stated that the net profits on the steamship service had been a very handsome one.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Marine made that statement a few weeks ago, it certainly is a surprise to me, as it must have been to other hon. members of this House, to see that he has only asked for the small sum of $20,000,000. Twenty million dollars will not go very far in building passenger ships for ocean service. Perhaps the Government had a caucus and the hon. member could not get his way as happened in ^ regard to the naval policy in connection with the report submitted by Lord Jellicoe. The minister told us during the course of his remarks that the Government started this policy of building cargo ships to be operated by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine in May, 1918. When the minister introduced this policy during the war, although we did not be-

lieve in government ownership of ships, we realized that as ships were being sunk in all parts of the world, there was nothing for us to do but to agree to that policy. But the war ended in November of tha| year and if the war was over and ships .were no longer being sunk it was not necessary to go further in making future contracts. The minister told us that contracts were made in January,of this year. It seems to me that it is bad policy for any Government to go into the shipbuilding and ship operating business. It is a matter which should be left entirely to private individuals; it is not a business for the Government to engage in. The Canadian people themselves can build and operate ships as well as the minister can. I am sure that he believed that he was giving a very glowing account of what his department had done during the past year. I say it was a very poor showing. The minister told us that with nineteen steamers-I presume of an average tonnage of about 4,000 tons deadweight which would make them cost anywhere from $10,000,000 to $15,000,000-there was a profit of $1,500,000 on their operation. Well, Sir, if the little boats that I am interested in only made that much profit comparatively in recent years I would sell them and sell them quickly. The only reason why that large profit was made-of course the minister did not say so but it is evident to everybody-was because the conditions that existed to-day, and which have prevailed for the last two or three years, were entirely unprecedented and it is only a matter of a few months, or a year at the outside when these ships, which have made a profit of a million arid a half dollars under abnormal (conditions, will go into debt-each one. of them.
It must have been gratifying to hon. gentlemen on this side when the Minister spoke of the excellent work that was being done in the shipyards of this country. My mind went back about ten years when the Liberal Party were in power and wanted to build a navy. They told the people of this country that they could do so but hon. gentlemen opposite, who at that time were supporting the Conservative Party, said that we could not build ships, we could not find rivetters-in fact we could not do anything in that line. My hon. friends opposite at that time called to their aid the Bt. Hon. Winston Churchill who made the statement that there was not a spot on the North American continent, to say nothing of Canada, where we could lay down the keel of a ship. Despite that we have had the admission of to-day from the Minister

of Marine. I am glad he acknowledged, -and the hon. member for Centre Toronto acknowledged the same thing-that Canadian workmen can build as good ships as British workmen can build. I am proud of the fact, we are all proud of it; the only differencfe is that we on this side knew il, years ago and hon. gentlemen opposite are only finding it out now.
I noticed that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bristol) in complimenting the Minister for his shipbuilding policy said he could sell those Government ships at a greater price than they cost. Well, Sir, my advice to the Minister is to sell those ships as quickly as he possibly can and the sooner the better. If he can sell those ships at a higher price than he paid for them, or at even as high a price, there is no reason why the Government of Canada should stay in the , shipbuilding business. If those ships can be sold at a profit, private enterprise firms like The Canadian Shipyards, or Vickers Limited or any of the other shipbuilding firms can go 'out and get the business themselves. I notice that the Three Rivers Shipbuilding Company have had no contract from this Government and that nevertheless they have gone abroad and obtained outside contracts. If the business is good and the ships turned out can be sold at a profit every shipyard in this country can . go out and get business for itself. Therefore there is no necessity for the Canadian Government to buy ships and interfere with the operations of private enterprise.
The Minister endeavoured to show that it was necessary to have those ships in order to build up our trade. It was quite true that while the war was on ships were scarce; but, Sir, with the shipbuilding programmes undertaken in Great Britain, the United States, and other countries that condition is not going to continue and I say that the Government has no more right to go into the shipbuilding business than it has to enter upon the manufacture of boots and shoes or candy. It should leave that business to those who are willing to invest their money in it. The Minister gave us a glowing account of the shipbuilding operations but I would like to draw his attention to facts set forth in the Toronto Globe of a recent issue. I have a copy of the paper in my hand and practically an entire page is taken up with an advertisement from the United States Shipbuilding Emergency Corporation in which they offer for sale 441 ships with a tonnage of 1,543,500 tons, and 31 barges with a total of 77,500 tons. In other words the United States
Government are offering for sale at the present time 500 boats representing practically 2,000,000 tons of shipping. Now, Sir, if private individuals put up their money and buy these boats is it fair that they should be subject to competition from the Canadian Government?	-
The hon. member (Mr. Bristol) gave us a reason why; we could not build ships in Canada as cheaply as they can in Great Britain that the workmen in the United Kingdom do not get as good wages as do our mechanics. In reply to that let me say that if there is one Qlass of people in Great Britain to-day-and throughout the war and in pre-war times-who receive good wages it is the men in the Clyde Shipyards and other shipyards in the Old Country; and any person who says that the reason for their being able to build ships cheaper over there is on account of lower wages is certainly not acquainted with the facts. This statement is also true with respect to the hours of labour for the British machinists, engineers and shipbuilders do not work any longer hours than those in any other part of the world.
Now, Sir, what about the future of the shipbuilding industry in this country? Is the Government going to continue its policy of building ships just for the sake of having something to do, for I presume if it does that will be the sole reason? If private individuals are willing to build ships I cannot see any good reason wThy the Government should also enter into the business. As I said before, it is not a matter for the Dominion Government at all; it is purely a business for private enterprise which should be freed from Government competition, and if necessary, assisted. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bristol) told us about the amount of capital invested in the Canadian shipyards and the number of men therein employed. I agree with the hon. gentleman that we should protect that investment as well as the men who are working in the indus'try. Personally I would not like to see any policy adopted in Canada which would have the result of closing up those shipyards and putting those men out of work. But I say the right way to promote the industry is not for the Government to engage in the industry itself. Tfie Government should go out of the shipbuilding business and frame another policy with respect to any help which it deems to be necessary for the shipyards which, are established at the present time. Of course we are only doing business in a small way in the Maritime Provinces. But during the

war, notwithstanding the necessities of the case, we did not come to the 'Government and say " We cannot build our little ships down there unless you help us and unless you buy the vessels from us." It would have been just as proper and just as legitimate for the minister to buy our little boats as to buy vessels from Vickers Limited or any other firm. But we did not make such an appeal, we had a duty to do during the war, and we did it to the best of our ability. New shipyards were started, we invested what money we had and borrowed what further sums were nefies-sary from the banks, and we did our little bit towards placing more tonnage on the ocean in order to help Great Britain and her Allies to win the war. If it is necessary to help in the building of ships and the securing of contracts for ships, let a suitable policy be devised; but the Government should not purchase ships and run them itself. If it is necessary, and if after careful investigation, it is found that the present Canadian shipbuilding firms cannot build ships in this country as cheaply as they can be turned out in Great Britain, France, United States, or elsewhere, the Government should in some way grant help. And my suggestion would be that it should be in the way of a bonus. If the Government thinks it is necessary to enter into that policy, I am willing to support it providing it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the Canadian shipbuilders need that bonus for the legitimate development of their business. There is no question but that during the war shipbuilding cost a great deal more money than it would under ordinary conditions, and for that reason, if it. is necessary, the, Canadian shipbuilding firms should be protected for a few years. But ' that policy should not be a permanent one, in fact I should not think it would be needed for more than one or two years; still if necessary our shipbuilders should have a certain amount of protection along that line.


Michael Clark: In view of the present financial condition of the country, where will the money come from?


William Duff: My hon. friend is justified in asking that question, but I am not, under ordinary conditions, in favour of bonusing the building of ships or any other industry. An indispensable condition, however, is that it should be necessary. Perhaps the hon. gentleman did not catch my qualification, but I have always insisted upon that.
I have always' maintained that any aid given should only be forthcoming in the [Mr. Duff.1
event of the shipbuilding industry needing it, and as far as I know it does not need it; I think the shipyards have made a lot of money. However, if it is necessary to keep our shipbuilding plants going, and keep the men employed for a year or two, the Government should come to their assistance.
If assistance is not necessary, do not give it to them; and in any case we should give it only after a proper investigation has been made. My hon. -friend asked where the money would co-me from; I really do not know. The only thing I would suggest is that my hon. friend help us on this side of the House to defeat -this -Government as quickly as possible in order that a Government may be put in power which will properly administer the affairs of the country.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I would like to make-


The CHAIRMAN:: Mr. Keefer has the
floor.


Mr. FRANK KEEFER:: I represent a shipbuilding city-


Mr. BUREAU:: Hear, hear.


Francis Henry Keefer: 
Mr. McMASTER:: I do not purpose taking up a great deal of the time of the committee this afternoon, but there are a few things which I should like to say concerning this proposal of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to spend another 820,000,000 of the people's money upon building and, after building, operating a national system of steamships. There is an argument for nationalization of railways. It has been noted by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) that where anything is a monopoly, either natural or quasi-natural, it is proper and right that that should be controlled by the community. There is, in that sense, an argument which largely offsets, although perhaps it does not altogether offset, the loss of efficiency in management which nearly always goes With bureaucratic or Government control as opposed to individual or company control. But that argument which applies to the nationalization of railways has no application at all in connection with the operation of tramp steamers. That is what these steamers "will bo; they are not of. the size to be used as large transatlantic or transpacific liners; they are the size of vessels which are engaged as tramp steamers, the sort of steamers which have built up in no small measure the wonderful mercantile supremacy of the Old Land. I cannot conceive of any business more inapt, if I may use that word, more improper for Government or bureaucratic control than the management of tramp steamers. You have to be able to watch the trade routes of the world, to bring your vessel home from Buenos Aires and on the next voyage send it off to the Black sea. I cannot understand how a Government can properly manage tramp steamers. The hon. member for Red Deer has very properly stressed the absurdity of a protectionist Government such as this Government is, endeavouring with a tariff to keep goods out of Canada and at the same time to build up international commerce by lines of steamers. But that is not the point I wish to make this afternoon, as it has been very well made by the hon. nrember for Red Deer. The point I want to make is the impropriety and unwisdom of the Government as opposed to individual or company endeavouring to operate ships. I remember during the war consulting a very well known steamship man of Montreal as to the efficiency which the British Government obtained from the British ships which, as a war measure, they had taken over. The British Government, in order to have the preference of the service of their 
mercantile marine, laid hands on the mercantile marine of Great Britain. I was told by this friend of mine that the ships were not operated above 60 per cent efficiency, because why? Not because the men who operated them were not patriotic, not because they were not trying to do their very best, but because they did not have the necessary information and freedom, the necessary initiative to carry on the operation of managing ships as private individuals or those in the employ of a company would have had. That is, to my mind, the great and fundamental objection to this scheme of the nationalization or the establishment of a national system of ocean-going vessels. We have had mixed up with the excellent and lucid exposition of the minister, paeans of praise of the protective system raised by hon. members on the other side. The hon. member for Toronto Centre (Mr. Bristol), who rarely visits this Chamber, has given us the benefit of an excellent speech in support of the principle of protection. May I remind him of a story told by some Portuguese legislator? There was a proposition made that the Tagus should be widened and deepened and made suitable for the conduct of commerce up and down that river in order to foster trade between Portugal and Spain; but Portugal had at 'that time a high tariff against Spain, and this Portuguese legislator said: " How ridiculous it is for us to endeavour to keep Spanish goods out of Portugal with a tariff and then to spend money on deepening the Tagus ! Let the Tagus run to the sea as it did in the time of our forefathers." But it is the impropriety and unwisdom of placing the control of tramp steamers in the hands of a bureau, of a Government department, against which I wish to protest-. The minister is in the happy position of being able to get out of this business with a profit. Let him embrace the opportunity at the earliest possible moment. Then he will have deserved well of his country; he will have entered into stupendous financial operations and closed those without a loss. How rarely in the history of this country have large operations of a quasicommercial or industrial character been entered into by a Government and abandoned by the Government without loss!
I press this upon the minister. I am glad that he has made money with his ships and I shall be still more glad to see the exact figures w'hen he lays them before the House, but now that he has made a profit let him remember the French proverb which says that " the better is the enemy

of the good." Let him be satisfied to call a halt and bring -these operations to a conclusion when he can do so without loss to the state.
Mr. JOHN H. BURNHAM: Mr. Speaker, I think a casual listener to this debate might get the impression that a large number of the members of this House had been sent here by private interests in order that they might thoroughly smash up everything they possibly can that is in the public interest. They do not seem to be pleading for the public interest. They try to show that it is utterly and absolutely impossible to conduct public business, and that it ought to be left to private individuals. If that is so, why do not these- gentlemen leave this Chamber and go home, leaving the affairs of this country to private individuals? Simply because it is impossible to carry on the public business of this country in that way. The answer is before these gentlemen if they will only notice the things that are so plain. Will my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) for one moment contend that public efficiency is so inferior to private efficiency that the Government of Canada should have handed over to a private company the prosecution of the war? There seems to be no discrimination at all in these matters. Let us be patriotic; let us be sensible, and remember that we are here to transact the public business in a public way and by public means, and that it is not to be left to private individuals.
Do not let us forget that it is but a few years since we were at the mercy of the Atlantic shipping pool, and God forbid that we should ever be at the mercy of another shipping pool in our time. If the Minister does not go on with his public ownership programme in the matter of shipbuilding, and give the industrious farmers and labour generally throughout this country a fair show on the ocean, as it has agreed to give to them on land, the Government will certainly meet with the strong disapproval of the people of this country.'. We do not want the main lines of communication in the hands of private individuals.
Lest the observations of that scientific reasoner the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) go without challenge, I should like to devote just two minutes to his observations. First of all, he said British shipbuilders, because of free trade, had driven American shipbuilders off the sea. That I absolutely deny. If the hon. gentleman will read the latest work on the history and development of the American
marine and American shipbuilding, he will find that from the time American shipbuilding began, British shipbuilders, Norwegian shipbuilders, French shipbuilders, and shipbuilders of every other nation were wiped off the sea by the Americans. It was the Americans with their old clippers who had the lines of shipping to Canton, South Africa, South America and Europe, and one very interesting thing in connection with those clippers is this: It was not the sharp bow that gave speed and efficiency but the blunt bow, which gave both capacity and speed. This history is one of the most interesting things in the world to review. You will find that the Americans simply captured the trade of the oceans. Then what happened? Under protection the American republic developed scr rapidly that it looked about for other nations to do its bidding, to do its hewing of wood and carrying of water, its carrying on water, and when the Americans -were asked why their shipbuilding had not been proceeded with and why Great Butain had been allowed to monopolize the shipping business they said: " It is because we have so much else to do. We prefer to let Britain do it, and to hire her ships." There are vast numbers of ships which the British shipyards are credited with building, and duly and properly credited with which, however, are under American registry. Tne Americans will build ships only as soon as they need to do so; it is not that they cannot build them, or because the system of protection forbids it. In the meantime they are drawing from the United Kingdom, Canada, and from all parts of the world, shipping and everything conceivable to enable them to expand as they are doing. Do not let anybody run away with the idea that our shipbuilding is not equal to that of Great Britain because we are said to have a false fiscal system in this country. That is not so at all. You cannot compare Canada with Great Britain, although the minister has announced to-day what has been achieved, and that we are able to take contracts on an even keel, as it were, even with the Old Country itself. That augurs well for the future, if we have a good governmental system. The trial spin has shown what we can do.
There is. an extraordinary kink, as it were, in the free trader's mind. Having enunciated the general principle of absolute freedom of trade, he seems to be utterly unable to understand that other elements enter in. Let me illustrate. If between the hon. member for Brome and myself there

should spring up a syatem of trade it follows, as the night the day, that if my labour cost is equal- to his and his to mine, then absolute free trade must obtain between us. But if-and here is the point-I make a profit as against the hon. member for Brome I take just that much away from him and do not give him any return for it. If I make a 25 per cent profit, I do 75 per cent of the work and he does 100 per cent; he is 25 per cent behind. If I make 50 per cent profit,. I only do half the work, and if I make 75 per cent profit, I do only .one-quarter of the work and to that extent make no exchange of work. This element of profit, which is the basis on wdiich all modern commerce is conducted is absolutely and entirely left out of consideration by these gentlemen. Profit is the basis on which all commerce is founded, and we surely have a clear example of that in the exchange situation to-day, when the United States is making us pay through the nose. It is absurd to say that Great Britain has been able to capture the ' commerce of the seas by reason of her free trade policy, and that because she exports she must import, because^any one acquainted with the facts knows that half the time British shiping goes home absolutely empty. It is no good my hon. friend (Mr. Mc-Master) shaking his head, because that is a fact. Her profit and her subsidies enable her to do that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Can the hon. member give us the figures?
Mr. BURNHAMI can give the figures but I am laying down now simply a general principle. Let me tell the hon. gentleman, whether he likes it or not, that in order to prevent any loss whatever the British Government subsidizes these lines, and it is this policy that enables Britain to maintain the monopoly of the sea. If I had a telegraph line and discovered that I could lose on telegraphs and make a profit on something else I would be content to lose on telegraphs, and the hon. member for Brome would exclaim: " There, look at what free trade will do"; whereas, as a matter of fact, I am making on something else. It is the same way with the British Government. They know that, from their insular position, if they do not carry the trade of the nations they are undone. They therefore build ships and subsidize them, and in that way get the trade of the world.


William Duff: Does my hon. friend mean to say that the British Government subsidizes tramp or freight steamers?


John Hampden Burnham: It subsidizes whole
lines; not all, I admit, but it subsidizes lines, and especially missionary lines; and when these missionary lines have run the others out, then perhaps they withdraw the subsidies, as they have sometimes done. But read the history of the development of the American marine and you will find it all laid down there, and you will discover that your antiquated ideas are like cobwebs in your brain. Sweep them out; they are not true; they are not correct; they are not founded on common sense; and business is founded on common sense. Do not, when you are discussing general principles, omit some of the other principles that bear directly on them. You might just as well calculate the orbit of the' moon without taking into consideration the influences of the planets and of the sun. Some of the earlier astronomers did that and could not understand why they were wrong. After Newton discovered the law of gravitation, when they made calculations without considering other heavenly bodies, they found that they did not work out. For example, when Herschell discovered Uranus a calculation being made of the orbit of that planet, it was found that it was more than 200 miles out. This appeared to be a negation of the Newtonian theory, but a young Frenchman, Leverier by name, made a calculation on the supposition that the Newtonian theory was correct, namely, that the influence of a planet still further out would account for the unusual motion of Uranus; and, proceeding on' that assumption, he discovered Neptune.
Now let me commend this sublime illustration, this tremendous example, as something that may possibly attract the attention of the hon. member for Brome when he is discussing the law of free trade. Let him remember that there are countless other things that pull and haul it in other directions, and until he has taken those into consideration his calculations are absolutely wrong.


Joseph Archambault: ' I rise to ask a question of the minister. Early in March I asked the following question, as appears in Hansard on page 327:
* .
1.	How many contracts for shipbuilding were given by the Government since the 1st of January, 1918?
2.	To what firms were said contracts given and what were the respective amounts?
The answer was that there were fifty-six contracts given, and the minister this afternoon in his speech stated that they were

given for the sum of $43,704,962.13. In answer to the following question:
Were all of said contracts given after tender?
The following information was given:
Contracts were placed after orders had been received from the several yards and prices and other details agreed upon.
My fourth question was:	" If so, were
they given by the lowest tenderer?" and the answer was, " Answered by number three." The answer to my fifth question, which was:
If not, why?" was " Answered by number three."
I have listened very carefully to the speech of the minister this afternoon and I am rot very clear yet as to whether these conti icts were given to the different shipbuilding companies after proper tenders had been made. Was an opportunity given to 2very shipbuilding company of Canada to tender?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The policy of the
Government., when it was inaugurated in 1918, was to keep busy the existing yards then located and operated in Canada. In addition to these yards that were in existence at the time the policy was announced, two or three new yards have been established. We did not advertise for public tenders in the way suggested by my hon. friend, for the reason that if we did one or more yards might get too great a share of the business. The policy of the Government was to distribute the business evenly in order to keep all of the yards busy and give employment to the workpien in various parts of the country, and, after the Armistice was signed, to returned soldiers. Every yard in Canada was therefore asked to bid for the Government's business. As I stated this afternoon, our own experienced technical officers figured up the cost, so that we had a check on the prices that were submitted to us by the various yards. We also had the Old Country costs to go by. We carried on negotiations for certain types of ships with various yards, making as .good a business deal as possible. As I say, we could not call for public tenders in the usual way, because some yards might not get any business while others might obtain too much. As I explained to the House this afternoon, the average cost of Canadian government ships is less than the American cost, and less than the cost of ships ordered by the Imperial Munitions Board.


Joseph Archambault: There was no competition?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the Government desired to place a contract for two or four ships of, say, 8,400 tons, such ships could not be built on the Lakes, and we would ask shipbuilding concerns on the Pacific coast, and at Montreal, Three Rivers and Halifax to give prices for these ships, and *we would make as close a bargain as possible, first of all having the cost of the ships ourselves, then having the bids from the yards capable of constructing ships of this, size, and having other information to .guide us. Altogether, I think we safeguarded the public interest as effectively as if we advertised for tenders in the usual way.


Joseph Archambault: Does the minister not think that if tenders had been called for in the usual way the Government would have been able to secure lower prices?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.


William Stevens Fielding: In regard to the manning and officering of these ships, has the minister been able to procure Canadian seamen and officers, or have we had to bring outsiders into the service?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: While the ships are owned by the Government, they are not directly operated, by the Government. The Canadian Gover'nment Merchant Marine, the stock of which is owned by the Government. is entirely under the management of Mr. Hanna and his board of directors, and tlie organization which he has for the operation of ships. I have_no direct knowledge of the personnel of the crews; the Canadian Government Merchant Marine look after that matter as well as the operating of the ships. Incidentally, I might say that I asked Mr. Hanna some time ago if they were many Canadians and he said " No." As a rule the majority of the crews for the time being are old countrymen, but Mr. Hanna gives the preference wherever Canadians are available. My department is doing everything it possibly can, with its schools of navigation throughout the country, to iAduce Canadians to take the necessary course to become officers or engineers, deckmen and so on. I hope that in the future the majority of the crews will be Canadians, but at the present time they are hot.	*


William Stevens Fielding: We had a discussion a few days ago as to whether or not we had commanding officers available, and I .had that in my mind when I asked the question.


William Duff: The minister spoke about the cost of Canadian ships in comparison with those built in other countries. This after-

1

noon he gave us figures of contracts made in Great Britain in comparison with those made in Canada. Does he figure the cost in pounds or dollars, and does he take the English pound as having a value in Canadian currency of 4.86 2/3, or what rate of exchange does he take at getting at the figures?
Mr. BiALLANTYNE: I did not do the figuring myself, and I would not want to give an answer to the hon. member for Lunenburg unless I knew that the figures were absolutely authentic. I will ascertain and let the hon. gentleman know.


Mr. LTJCIEN CANNON (Dorchester) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, the debate
which took place this afternoon was a very interesting one, but apart from that, it appealed to us of tire Liberal Party, inasmuch [DOT] as it reminded us of another which took place some ten years ago, when the leader of the Liberal Party suggested that we should build in this country a Canadian navy which would promote a new industry, that of shipbuilding, and would certainly lead later on to the building and maintenance of a fleet of merchantmen.
At that time, the leader of the Liberal Party, represented in the House of Commons and throughout the country, the thoughts and ideals of. all true Liberals of the day. If I remember well, the present Minister of Marine, who was then a member of the Montreal Board of Harbour Commissioners, was among the strongest and most enthusiastic supporters of such .policy.
It is useless, Sir, to revert to the past; it i,s useless for us, on this side of the House, to recall the debates, the bitterness of which, however, is not quite forgotten. As I said before, if I remember well, the very man who led the forces opposed to that policy is today leading the Government in this House- I refer to the Right Hon. Acting Prime Minister. If you cared, Mr. Speaker, to read over again the discussions which took place at the time, you would be very much surprised to notice that the same man whose Government now propose an expenditure oi $20,000,000 for the building 'of a Canadian merchantmen was the first one in the IJouse of Commons and throughout the country, to raise his voicd against .such a policy and to oppose Laurier's "tin-pot navy." We read in the Gospel that there. shall be joy in Heaven upon [DOT] one sinner that doeth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance.
To-day, Sir, as a member of the Liberal Opposition in this House, as a representa-

five of the people who entered the field in 1911 as a supporter of the naval policy oi Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and wa;s defeated, it is a matter of gratification to me to congratulate the Right Hon. Acting Prime Minister and to tell him that I hope that his change of heart, however, late it may be, will prove genuine. And to guote again the Gospel, knowing as I do that the Acting Prime Minister is quite conversant with it, let me tell him that according to Holy Scriptures, the best rewarded labourers were those who came about the eleventh hour.
I do not wish, Sir, to discuss the question on its merits, whether Canada should [DOT] have a Canadian merchant marine or whether we are entitled to have ships flying our national flag; for to such a question there can be but one answer. Yet, I think there arises an incidental question and I anticipate much trouble in the future, unless the Government tackle the problem and immediately solve it. The man who deals with the upbuilding of this new merchant marine with its operation and in a general way with its development, that gentleman,
I say, is Mr. Hanna, of the C.N.R. Now. Sir, I 'say that if the Government of this country want to be fair and deal honestly with the Canadian ratepayers, and if the Minister of Marine wants to be consistent, and to live up to his Liberal principles-as I have no doubt he should-act-
I say that the hon. minister has but one thing to do and it is this: Let him dismiss Mr. Hanna and all those who in any way, are connected with the C. N. R. Here are gentlemen who have fleeced the country, here are men who have bled white nearly each province of Canada; here are men who after 'building throughout ithe country railway lines in an, extravagant and irrational way, have extorted from a too liberal and obliging Government millions which are now filling the coffers of promoters such as Mackenzie and Mann. The thieves must be cast out of the temple, whether that temple be the Government of Canada or the House of Commons. The Hon. Minister of Marine has an Imperative duty to discharge: Let him take up his whip, like an honest man, and exipel all the knaves from his department,
Is the Government Warranted in givin away another $20,000,000, and in handin that money over to that man Hanna who has brought ruin to the Northern Canadian and extorted from the public treasury hun-reds and hundreds of millions, the wherewithal to pay the debts of unscrupulous financiers^
fcf; tfj

One more remark and I am through. Formerly the city of Quebec was the centre of the shipbuilding industry in Canada. The hon. member from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who always gives proof of erudition and is anxious to be looked upon as a scholar by his colleagues, has just referred to a new shipbuilding policy. Let me tell my hon. friend that he came over to Canada rather too late and that had he come to this continent a little earlier he would know that the shipbuilding business was thriving in Canada in the early sixties and seventies, down to 1875, and this because of an .imperative necessity, as civil war was waging in the United States of America, and the Americans were having a very large number of ships built in this country. Whether success is attained in shipbuilding or not, it does not depend upon the fiscal policy, but upon favourable opportunities.
Sir, my opinion on the whole shipbuilding policy is very simple, and in fact so simple that it should also be shared in by the hon. Minister of Marine. I stood in 1911 on the same ground as Sir Wilfrid Laurier did, and the hon. Minister of Marine also took the same stand. Now, in 1920, I stand for the same policy and the members of the Government seem to hold the same views. In connection with this policy, let the hon. Minister of Marine recall that he was a follower of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; let him be mindful of the principles which he then advocated, and so doing he will ever protect Canadian autonomy. Let him not forget the dangers that threatened our trade during the war, because of the fact that England wanted to take over all our Canadian ships and let him in the future see to it that England be mistress in her own house, so far as marine is concerned, and Canada mistress in her own home.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is now six o'clock
and I leave the chair.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.


Georges Henri Boivin: When the House rose at six o'clock we were considering Item 219, providing for the Government shipbuilding programme, in the Main Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1921. The item had been under consideration since three o'clock and had been fully discussed. Is it the 411
pleasure of the committee to adopt the resolution?


Mr. COPP:: We are asked to vote the
large sum of $20,000,000 to carry out the Government's shipbuilding programme, but we are not given a very lucid explanation of the reasons for that expenditure. We are' greatly indebted to the minister for presenting to us the information he had in regard to the item, but I was somewhat disappointed and rather surprised when he said in answer to an hon. gentleman that he did not know whether the information he was giving was correct or not because it,had not been prepared by him.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I might say to the hon. gentleman that every figure I gave this afternoon I prepared personally with the exception of the sterling cost of the ships.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I was not referring to the
statement of my hon. friend but to his reply in answer to a question. Doubtless the minister's statement was correct in so far as it went; but it seems to me that in asking for such a large amount of money at any time, and particularly under present conditions, he should be prepared to give further and detailed explanations in regard to this item. The minister somewhat hurriedly gave a list of ships that had been built, and other details the effect of which it was difficult to grasp without a little study. I would like to know whether the contracts for these ships were let by public tender, and if so whether the lowest tenders-were accepted. Or are the ships being built under force contract, with provision for a certain percentage of profit? These are matters of detail which the minister. should place before the committee before we are asked to vote this large amount of money.
I do not intend to discuss the question of what should be a proper policy in the matter of shipbuilding. I am free to say that I am not in a position to know whether a policy of shipbuilding by the Government is the best thing for the country. Of course, I have my own opinion about it, and I suppose -all other hon. members have theirs ; though, their opinions may be based upon more knowledge- of -the matter than I possess. But the advisability of building merchant vessels at the present time is very , questionable. It is questionable whether the minister did the right thing when he went into the building of a merchant marine a year or two ago-at a time when the cost

of construction was very greatly enhanced. The minister said this afternoon that notwithstanding the huge expenditures that had been made in the building of these vessels, the return as a result of operation was on the right side. But have the expenditures connected with the operation of these vessels been charged up to the proper accounts, or have they been charged up to the operation of the Canadian National railways? Has a portion of the salaries of the directors of the Canadian National Railway system been charged up to the earnings of the vessels whose operations my hon. friend says have .paid a dividend? We cannot know that there has been a proper return on the *expenditure made or that there has been a net profit on operation unless we know that these things have been properly charged against the, operations of the different vessels. Generally speaking, having regard to the experience of the past, we cannot, in the operation of steamships by a Board ol Management appointed by the Government, expect to meet with the greatest financial success. When my hon. friend gives a glowing account of the results which have been achieved through the operation of the Government vessels, he must realize that in the years to come freight rates will not be [DOT]as excessively high as they are now, and that he is building his vessels at a time when costs and charges are at almost the highest possible point. I think it was the member for Toronto Centre (Mr. Bristol) who said-the minister hinrself also said it -that we could sell these vessels to-day at ,a< profit. If he can dispose of them at a profit, I would suggest that he do so, for two reasons: First, the responsibility of financing -the undertaking would be removed from the shoulders of this country; and, second, the chance of loss in operation would be done away with so far as the country is concerned. Besides, if we handed these vessels over to private interests, we would not then be interfering with or competing with private individuals who were prepared to go into the shipping business. If, therefore, my hon. friend can transfer these ships and rid the country of further responsibility in regard to them without subjecting the country to any loss it is my opinion that he should do so.


Mr. POWER:: Is the Board of Management which has charge of the operation of these vessels a member of the Shipping Federation of Montreal?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I cannot make a positive statement, but I should judge that

they would be. That, however, in no way binds them as to freight rates.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What are the functions ol the Shipping Federation of Montreal?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am not familial
with the functions of that body, but I should judge that they would deal with pilotage matters, aids to navigation, harbour dues, allocation of berths and so on. But they have nothing whatever to do with the fixing of rates.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Will the minister say that the government-owned ships are competing with other lines running into Canadian ports?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Certainly.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Are the government-owned ships charging lower rates?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am not familial
with the rates charged by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine but naturally they would meet competition where necessary. I cannot say whether or not their rates are lower.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: As I understand it, one
of the principal reasons for the building and operation of this Canadian Merchant Marine was that we might be able to ship our products overseas at a lower rate. Unless the Canadian Merchant Marine by competition decreases the cost of transporting freight I hardly see that there is much reason for its existence now that the war is over. It is essential that the minister assure the House that by means of the merchant marine built by the country we shall be able to ship our products overseas at a much better rate than heretofore. If the minister will not answer in regard to this matter, he may answer me in regard to something else. Were any arrangements made with the British Admiralty regarding the taking over of Canadian Government ships during the war?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The British Minister of Shipping had no authority to take over ships of Canadian registry during the war without the consent of the Canadian Government. As to ships under British registry, he had the right to commandeer without consulting the Canadian Government.	_


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is it not a fact that tons of freight were lying on [DOT] the wharves at Montreal and that we were unable to send it overseas because the British Admiralty

had taken all space for freight going from Canadian ports during the latter days of the war?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: On ships under British register the British Minister of Shipping commandeered 70 per cent of the available cargo space. As regards ships under Canadian register, such as the Canadian Mercantile Marine, he had no such authority, and did not exercise any.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Was the available space on the Canadian Government Merchant Marine given one hundred per cent to individual shippers?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: None given over to British Admiralty purposes?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Not an ounce.


Mr. CAHILL:: Could the minister tell us where he expects to get this amount of $20,000,000 from that he purposes spending on shipping?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the hon. member will ask that question of my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), when the Budget is brought down, I am sure he will tell my hon. friend. In a general way we shall get it from the revenue of the country, and if that is not sufficient, I suppose, maybe, it will be necessary for the Government to depend on the banks. But I think that question should more properly be put to my colleague the Minister of Finance.


Frank S. Cahill: But the question is before us now to deal with as to where this money is to come from.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I can assure my hon. friend that we shall get the money.


Frank S. Cahill: This is a matter in which the Canadian people are interested. The time has come when the people of Canada are about tired of spending borrowed money for the promotion of the industries of this country. At the last session of Parliament we had the Minister of Finance borrowing money from the Canadian people in order to lend it to countries so that they could buy goods from this country with that money. Much of that money-	'


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I regret very much to be obliged to call the hon. member to order, but I must remind him that the House is now sitting as a Committee of Supply and not as a Committee of Ways
and Means. The finding of moneys for all purposes mentioned in the Estimates comes properly before the committee when it is sitting as a Committee of Ways and Means.


Frank S. Cahill: I just wanted to point out by way ojf illustration that we had been spending a great deal of money on various things for the promotion of the rich men's interests in this country, and this apparently is one of them. This is not only a question of where the money is to come from; it is a question of the policy of the Government. The very item itself states that it is to complete or to promote the Government shipbuilding programme. If the Government have a programme, it must necessarily follow that they have a programme for providing the money for this shipbuilding, and I am simply asking the Government how they purpose going- on, if they intend to go on.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must again point out to the hon. member that the question of where the money will come from or how the money will be provided is not in order at the present time.
Mr.. CAHILL: I just want to bring to the attention of the Government the absurdity of their going on spending money by the millions when they do not have it. It is necessary to make some reference to expenditure in order to bring out the point that I wish to illustrate. The Government are spending money on every hand by the millions-


An hon. MEMBER:: By the hundreds ot millions.


Frank S. Cahill: -by the hundreds- of millions, and they state that this vote is to carry out a policy. What I wish to know is where this policy is to lead the country, where the people of Canada are coming to with this policy. We were told this afternoon by one of the supporters of this Government that we must go into the shipbuilding business now in order to provide traffic for the railways. Where is. the thing to end. The hon. member who made that reference also stated that we must expect deficits which will come out of the pockets of the people of Canada. I merely want to know from the minister if there is any end to the ambitions of the Government to spend the money of the Canadian people for the benefit of the friends of the Government.	[DOT]


William Duff: The minister has been asked with regard to the amount which appears

in the Estimates in connection with the shipbuilding programme. It seems very strange to me that a business man should ask his shareholders to approve an expenditure of $20,000,000, or of any amount, without knowing where the money is to come from when he asks for it. It seems to me that the first thing that we should know, whether it is in' ordei or not, is where the money is coming from. No Minister of the Crown should come before this committee without being able to give the information as to where the money is to come from before he asks for it.
I should like to know from the minister how these vessels are chartered. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) asked whether the freight rates were higher or lower than the ordinary dealers' freight rates. Are these vessels chartered through brokers or directly through the agents of the Mercantile Marine Corporation?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The vessels are not chartered at all. There is more freight offering both for the outward voyages and the inward voyages than the vessels are able to carry. There is no necessity to charter them in view of the large quantity of freight constantly offering.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does the minister refer to Canadian freight or foreign?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mostly Canadian.


William Duff: That is not an answer to my question. I do not care whether there is ten times as much freight offering as can be carried. The fact that a vessel carries freight means that it is chartered; that is, a merchant in Quebec, Montreal or Toronto must charter space in a vessel to carry freight; and I would like a direct answer to my question.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I thought I had made the matter clear to the hon. mem-her who is a shipping man. The Canadian Government Mercantile Marine do not * charter their vessels; they see to it that there is an abundance of freight for them. Their vessels are handled the same as the Canadian Pacific or the White Star or the Cunard handle their vessels. Vessels are not chartered through brokers at all. The freight is sent to whatever port the ship is going to sail from, by the Government, railways or by some other railway, and the Canadian Government Mercantile Marine sees to it that the freight is there when the ship is ready to sail; but they certainly do not charter any of their vessels.


William Duff: The last answer is what .I wanted. The vessels are chartered. The trouble is that the minister does not know what the word " charter " means. A vessel is chartered by John Brown of Montreal or John Jones of Toronto to carry 100 casks of rum from Montreal:-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Duff: -or flour or anything else. I am pleased at the sentiment that emanates from the other side. Last year I noticed that when the vote was about to be taken many members absented themselves because they did not want to vote for prohibition. I am glad to know from the minister that these vessels are chartered without commissions being paid. Do these vessels pay a business profits tax to the Government? Every private ship owner in the country has to pay part of his profits to the Receiver General under what is known as a business profits tax or a tax on incomes received from vessels. Do these ships belonging to the Government pay this business profits tax?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am afraid the hon. member will have to ask my colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid). The railways are under the Minister of Railways, and the ships are also managed by Mr. Hanna and his Board of Directors. Just what taxes they pay, I do not know.


William Duff: I move that the committee rise and report progress, so that we can get this information from the Minister of Railways.
Motion negatived.


Mr. BUTTS:: The shipping question is one of very considerable importance to our part of the country. There is hardly a ton of soft coal that goes into the city of Montreal that does not come in one of our ships from Sydney. There is not a single ton of iron ore that goes into thAt city that does not cpme from Sydney or from our sister colony, Newfoundland, of which my hon. friend from Eunenburg is a native. I know rqy hon. friend is proud that from (he ancient colony of Newfoundland and from the furnaces in my county comes the cheapest iron that is produced in the world. I will not say steel, but I repeat, we can produce pig iron more cheaply than any other part of the world.
Now I want to pay a little attention to my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark). We have heard his theories so often. They
\

.are the theories that directed my little infantile legs from the cradle, but I have always found that a man who preached free trade was a protectionist in practice.
I wish I could pay my hon. friend the .compliment of saying that he was sincere both in theory and practice on either free trade or protection; but I fear I cannot do it. He was a supporter for fifteen years of a Government that preached free trade but practised protection. Is not that true?


Michael Clark: The fifteen years began in 1896. I only came to Canada in 1902. My hon. friend surely won't hold me responsible for what happened in the six years before I came. I go one step further and point out fo my hon. friend that he ought to hold it as an extenuating circumstance, that the party got into thoroughly bad lines before I joined it, and I was misled by the name Liberal into thinking the party really was.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I am most pleased to receive my hon. friend's explanation. I invite him over. -We will give him a seat'here. Now for a moment we are going to lock horns seriously. My hon. friend would make it appear to this House that England became predominant in shipping during the days of free trade over there. Recalling the history I read when a boy, was it not in the-war between England and France when England captured Louisburg and became master of all the inland waters of Canada that England acquired her supremacy at sea, and from that time France's erstwhile predominance began to wane? As my hon. friend from West Peterboro (Mr. Burnham) pointed out this afternoon, the Americans said: We can make more money out of other business, so we 'will hire our ships from England. Let mp say this: It is within my own lifetime, and I am not the oldest man in this House, when the iron ore areas of Newfoundland were first discovered by Graham Fraser, the late president of the Nova Scotia Steel Company- a discovery which led to our beating the whole world, as we can to-day, at the smelting of ore from the coast of Newfoundland up there about Tilt Cove. We produce pig iron to-day more cheaply at Sydney harbour than in any part of this rotund globe. Coming now to free trade, it is a subject on which the people of Canada are fed up.
There are to-day in Canada over forty thousand miles of railroad and canals that have cost about.$150,000,000; and we take pride in our court houses, custom houses, post offices, and other public buildings. Did
any principle of free trade enter into their construction? Were they not rather built under thp aegis of a protective tariff. When hon. gentlemen who talk so much about free trade rise to speak in this House, I sometimes-if the decorum of this Chamber will countenance the expression-I sometimes admire their gall. I will ask these free traders this question:	Did they ever
know a single man in this House of Commons of Canada who was sincere enough in his convictions to assume the Premiership of this Dominion and put into force a free trade policy? No; they do not. I am going to follow my hon. friend from Red- Deer just a little further. Let me inform that hon. gentleman that I am not an Englishman; I am not an Irishman; I am not a Scotsman; I am a Canadian.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I repeat, I am a Canadian. And when I heard this afternoon the remarks of my hon. friend in regard to navigation and shipping I confess I was somewhat surprised- at the meagre extent of his knowledge of the subject. The British Isles, that were almost lost in the German ocean, were, he said, the centre of control and the seat of knowledge in regard to the science of shipping. Well, now, Mr. Chairman, Balboa, who found the route of the Panama Canal, was not a native of the British Isles, nor did -Columbus, the discoverer of America, have the honour to claim that spot as his home; and Cabot who explored the coast of North America was not, as far as I am aware, a native of the British Isles. I give Great Britain credit for beling the greatest colonizer that . the world has ever known, but she cannot be claimed to have been the greatest explorer. The man who wrecked the Empress of Ireland in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, I may say, hailed from those little islands in the German ocean. You never heard of a Nova Scotian ever having made such a mistake in navigation. Now I do not intend to pursue my hon. friend any further, for I see quite well that he works pn dreams and theories and not on practical knowledge. Let us get away from bickering and get down to solid facts.


An hon. MEMBER:: A good idea.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Yes, certainly, a good idea; and as a matter of fact, let me say right now that there is in the county I represent a steel works that is capable of producing pig iron cheaper than any other city in the

world. This Government, and particularly the Minister of Marine, has entered into a contract with the company through which there has been establish'd a very large steel plate mill, the only ship plate mill in any place from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic sea, with the exception of the " Smoky City " of the United States. We are able to produce them an ample supply of plates, as has been demonstrated within a very few weeks, and are likely to-be able to supply the entire Dominion as- well as a large portion of the United Kingdom, and may- possibly be called upon even by Pittsburgh for the supply of plates. This is something that was not dreamed of ten years ago. Ten years ago in my county people were wondering how it was possible for them to send coal up the St. Lawrence to compete with the coal mines of the United States. Previous to the election of 1911 the city of Montreal entered into a contract with a United States company for bituminous coal. They were to be supplied with 50,000 tons of coal for all the public works of Montreal at a price thirty-one cents below the tender of the Dominion Coal Company, and that notwithstanding the fact that fit that time the Dominion Coal Company and all Canadian coal companies had an advantage of fifty-four cents a ton. Under conditions of that kind it is rather difficult to understand why we people in the East of Canada are not a little bit prejudiced against the men in the West. We have very little in common with them. Do they buy our coal? When they bought our steel we gave it to them cheaper than they could buy it in England. We sent our steel rails around Cape Horn and sold them at a very cheap rate in Prince Rupert.
* These are facts. Now then, there is one other thing: I remember when I was a young fellow down in Nova Scotia the old men, and the old women too,-for I sometimes associated with the ladies-told me of the enormous cost of flour during the days of the Franco-Prussian war in 1870-1-2. They were paying $14 a barrel for flour. They thought it was, something enormous. This brings me back to my farmer friends down there who talk to us so very,'very much about profiteering. I am going to make this statement, that there is no class in this Dominion of Canada, that are greater profiteers than the farmers.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I would just like to call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that we are. still discussing the Government's shipbuilding programme.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Air. Chai rman, I was going to say that your remarks were so jocular-
Some hon. AIEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Hamilton Butts: If you allow me to proceed I will promise that my brevity will really amount to wit. I will let my friends the farmers down there go-I can have a slap at them some other time-and 1 will return to the subject of shipping which is under debate at present. Perhaps I will return to my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), He talked this afternoon about shipping. Aly hon. friend from Red Deei does not know all about shipping. The biggest wooden ship that was ever floated on salt water was built right down in Nov:. Scotia in the county of Yarmouth.


Michael Clark: Under a low tariff.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Well now, let us see whether it was in the time of low tariff or not.
Air. AI. CLARK: When was it?


Robert Hamilton Butts: She was built somewhere
about 1876 or 1877 in the county of Yarmouth.
Mr. AI. CLARK:	Before the National
Policy, or you never could have built it.


Air.   BLTTTS@: There was never a very low tariff in Nova Scotia. It was always so high, so much above your English tariff, that they were able to build bigger wooden ships than you ever built in England. You talk about your free, trade or protection, what has it to do with these lines of trader What is the use of your having built in the county of Yarmouth the biggest wooden ship that was ever floated if she cannot connect with railway lines? Your railway and canal lines were built under protection. The policy of the Minister of Alarine has my entire sympathy in every respect; only, as 1 told him the other evening, I would like him to call into consultation a few experts and drive his good .policy just a little bit farther.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Will the minister give us some information with reference to the wreck of the "Canadian Spinner."


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The "Canadian Recruit-."	.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It left Quebec late in the autumn of last .ye^r and was wrecked. I understand the wreck has been ascribed to the lack of proper ice breakers to escort this boat down the St. Lawrence. If we expend large sums of money on vessels of this kind we ought at least to take proper

precautions to see that they manage to get to sea in safety.
Mr. BALLANTY'NE:	My hon. friend is
aware that this occurrence took place very late in the' season-in the month of December-when the most powerful icebreaker we had, the "Montcalm" was down around the Straits of Belle Isle trying to reach the lighthouse keepers. I have in my Estimates, when we come to it, an item of $2,000,000 for a very much larger and more powerful ice breaker than the "Montcalm." If we had had such an ice breaker as I propose-we had one but sold it during the war to Russia-there would have been no trouble experienced in relieving the "Canadian Recruit" and also the "Canadian Spinner." When we take up the ice breaker item I shall be very glad to say more in so far as the "Recruit" is concerned. I am happy to say that she is not badly damaged and I do not think there will be much difficulty in having her salvaged when the weather permits.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Has she been abandoned to the underwriters?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: She has been abandoned to the underwriters.	.


Joseph Archambault: What was the cost of that ship?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It was $817,000.


Joseph Archambault: Was she fully
insured?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Fully insured.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is there any information to be given to the committee writh reference to the rather unfortunate cruise of the "Canadian Pioneer" from Pictou?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The "Canadian
Sealer."


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: -the cruise of the "Canadian Sealer" from Pictou to the Magdalen Islands? Is there any explanation why this vessel did not reach the Islands where, I understand, the inhabitants were in dire need of provisions and were almost on the verge of starvation?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The only explanation
I can give is that owing to the very severe weather and the thickness of the ice it was quite impossible for the "Sealer" to reach the Magdalen Islands. Even the icebreaker " Montcalm" was stuck a month in the ice before she could reach the Magdalen Islands. We were using every endeavour within our power to get provisions to those
islands. We also tried to reach the islands with the "Sealer" but the ice was too thick. Eventually the, "Montcalm" got through.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It seems to me rather bad management on the part of the Canadian Alercantile Marine to have allowed a vessel -which I presume was not an icebreaker and therefore not fitted for a voyage in the depth of winter-to attempt such a trip. There is no doubt whatsoever that in so doing a great risk was being taken, and it seems to me that the Board of Management-should have obtained expert advice on the subject before sending a ship which was liable to be damaged on such a dangerous expedition. I think the minister owes it to the people on the Alagdalen Islands, who are the parties interested, to explain just on whose advice this ship wai sent and why a boat better fitted for the journey was not selected.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I wish at once to relieve the Canadian Alercantile Marine of the onus of sending the "Sealer" to the Magdalen Islands. The "Sealer" had not been turned over to the Canadian Government and it was my own department that forced her to go there. The people of the Magdalen Islands were on the verge of starvation; our icebreaker "Montcalm" was not available at that time; and the situation was so serious that the Government were considering the advisability of sending provisions by airship if they could not be conveyed in any other way. Therefore I think hon. gentlemen will agree that the Government were justified in taking the risk they did. I am glad to say the ship was not damaged, but it was our responsibility and our duty to load the. vessel with provisions and try to get her to the Alagdalen Islands if it was at all possible.


Air. PARENT:: meeting the necessities of our own people- and the minister himself said that the people of the Magdalen Islands were last season threatened with starvation. If the construction and maintenance of this fleet of steamships is, first, last and all the time, a Canadian enterprise, I would submit that the first thing to do would be to meet the necessities of our own people and not to allow them to starve, or to come within measurable distance of it. I understand that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has already granted subsidies to a certain company with a view to establishing a steamship service between the Magdalen Islands and to Gaspe, but no service is yet forthcoming. A reference to an answer given here by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) a few days ago will disclose the fact that the St. Lawrence Trading Company has received a large subsidy for such a service, but the service has never been installed. Many requests have been made to the Government for an improvement in the-means of communication with that part of our coast but so far without success. If there is any excuse for this failure to provide much needed facilities it is that the Government is surrounded always by the same big interests which it desires to nourish and protect. The other day we had the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) coming to this House and giving advice to the Government. The only thing he told them was to carry on-that is carry on in the spending of money lavishly in the interest of the people whom the Government wants to protect. In the meantime Canadian ships are going all over the world while our own people are threatened with starvation. It seems to me, Sir, it is time we looked a little more closely after Canadian interests.
The other day I read in the Ottawa Citizen a speech by Mr. Hanna in which he said, referring to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, that we were adopting a shipping policy of our own, and were going to manage ships ourselves. "But," he said, "We want the politicians not to interfere with what we are doing." Well, Sir, that is very good, but no matter what Mr. Hanna may say, he will never prevent me from pointing out any wrong that I may see in the Government's administration. If there is one thing that a member from the city of Quebec cannot forget, when a programme of this sort is up for consideration it is the fact Quebec, although one of the best ports in Canada, has, during the term of the present
Government, been deliberately and wilfully ignored.
Mr. Chairman, if this merchant marine of ours is going to be operated in connection with the Canadian Government Railways was it not the main idea of that railway system that the grain from the Canadian West should be shipped through Canadian ports, and especially through the port of Quebec. And yet I fail to see in the routes laid down provision made for a single vessel to load grain at Quebec, grain from'dhe Canadian West intended for foreign markets.
The member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) has asked some very pertinent questions. He has asked why these contracts for ships should have been granted to certain firms, whether tenders were called for, and whether in each case the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer. I am informed that most of these contracts have been given to the same people. We should have information with regard to that, so that -we may know whether there is competition in that line of construction. It would be interesting to know also what is the capital of each of these companies which are building Government steamers. We are told that most of them have hardly any capital subscribed, or, if any, that it is very small, and that practically speaking none of these people are taking any risks in connection with the building of the vessels. All this information we should have; it.is only fair that questions of this kind which were put by my hon. friend (Mr. Copp) should be answered.
On the Order Paper appears a notice of motion in the name of the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) asking for a copy of certain correspondence between the Prime Minister and J. T. Ross, president of the Quebec Board of Trade concerning the intention of the Government to build in Canada a number of 15,000-ton passenger steamships for the Canadian service; also a notice of motion asking for a copy of a letter said to have been signed by twenty-two senators and members of the House of Commons representing the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, addressed to the Prime Minister, recommending the shipment of grain by rail via Quebec; also a copy of the answer to such letter, as well as the letters sent by J. T. Ross to the Minister of Railways in January and February, 1920, concerning the export of wheat via Quebec. It may seem that there is no connection between these subjects and the item under consideration, but there is a connection. If the merchant marine is to
I Mr. Parent.]

be operated in connection with the Canadian National Railway system and the minister wants to obtain the support of the whole community he should not forget the best ports of this country, especially the port of Quebec.	.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: With regard to communication with the Magdalen Islands, 1 may say that the steamer " Lady Evelyn," owned by a private company and subsidized by the Government, was on that route, but, having become disabled about the month of November, was unable to continue her regular sailings. It would not be advisable for the Government to enter into competition with a private concern that was enjoying a subsidy from the Dominion Treasury, provided they were taking proper care of the passengers and freight, and I understand that they were. The " Lady Evelyn " will be repaired and again placed on that route, but if she is not able to carry on the -service I shall be very glad to bring the matter to the attention of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. The hon. member is quite right when he says that these ships are built primarily for the use of Canada and Canadians and that we must serve our home interests before, we serve our export interests abroad.
As to the other question raised by my hon. friend and also by the member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp), I have already given the information in answer to an inquiry made this afternoon by the member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archam-bault), but I shall be only too happy to give it again. I stated this afternoon that when the Government inaugurated their [DOT]shipbuilding programme,, early in 1918, the policy was to keep the Canadian steel shipbuilding yards fully occupied and to provide the tonnage that the Government desired to have. We did not call for public tenders because the business could not be handled in that way. One firm, for instance, in order to be glutted with business, might quote a price a shade lower than that quoted by another firm, and we would not have been able evenly to distribute the business. The greatest care, however, was exercised in obtaining prices from the different yards. :If we wanted a ship of 5,000 or 8,000 tons we asked the yards that were capable of turning out ships of that size what their prices were. We did not accept always the price that was quoted us; in many cases we carried on negotiations for weeks before the price was finally arranged that was satisfactory to the Government.
We had a check on the price through the experts in the Marine Department who figured out what the cost of a ship should be; and we had also the competitive bids from the various yards. Moreover, we knew what it would cost to build similar ships in the United Kingdom. If hon. members will ask the shipyards they will be told that we did not let them off very easily. In fact, the shipbuilders in British Columbia felt that their prices were being so much beaten down that they appealed to the members and did everything they could to get us to deal more liberally with them. But I and the officers associated with me did the best we could to get the very best prices. In comparison with what other countries have done, I do not think that we need be ashamed of the contract prices that were arrived at.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of the sixty-three contracts which have been or are to be awarded, the distribution is among some fouiteen different firms and the contemplated total expenditure is something like $74,000,000,	$50,000,000 has already been
spent, and we are asking now for an additional $20,000,000. It is correct, is it not, that no tenders have been called for and that all these contracts have been awarded by Order in Council.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The contracts were awarded by Order in Council after I as responsible minister had seen that the prices were fair and right. The Government purchased just as a private corporation would purchase.
Mr. MACKENZIE KINjG: But so far as these fourteen companies were concerned, no tenders were called for?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No tenders. There were, I think, seventeen companies.


Georges Parent: Were any offers made for the construction of ships larger than those now being built by the Government,- for ships of 15,000 instead of 4,000 or 5,000 tons?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am not aware of any such proposal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are further
contracts to be awarded, or have all contracts been awarded?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No further contracts.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I endorse every word spoken by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) a few moments ago. It

is not fair that we should vote such a huge amount of money to be expended for the purpose of carrying the trade of Canada outside of Canada and expanding it abroad if we leave our provinces, and especially the part of our country which is most in need of the services of navigation, without any help at all. The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) has just referred to the Magdalen islands and the coast of Gaspe. I would call the attention of the minister to the north shore of the St. Lawrence below' Quebec, the district which lies between Murray bay and Tadoussac, and as far as the Labrador coast. Last year I succeeded in obtaining from the minister the assurance that the steamer Champlain would be taken from her course and sent to ply between Murray bay and Tadoussac. This w'ent on very well for a certain number of months until last January, -when tenders were called for the sale of the boat. Recently, when I put a question in the House, the minister told me that there was no necessity for replacing the ship which was practically sold. I must protest against such an answer. There is a necessity for having a regular boat service from Murray bay down the river St. Lawrence all the time, and especially between the months of (October and May. I am told that there is a little story told about this ship, the Champlain. Tenders were called, a certain number of tenders w'ere reoeived, and one was accepted. The reason why the.sale was not proceeded with, I am informed, wras that some friends of the Government submitted a tender -which was to be accepted, but they could not finance the enterprise and pay for the ship. If we are going to -vote such a huge amount as $20,000,000 for ships, we should see to it that $500,000 or $600,000, or whatever may be necessary, is applied for building a boat to carry on the service, which is very necessary, along the coast between Murray bay and Tadoussac, and as far as Labrador.
There is another point. I was surprised this afternoon to hear the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) defending the policy of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. This hon. gentleman, everybody knows, was connected for years past with a number of shipping companies, the Richelieu and Ontario, the Canada Steamship lines, and now he is one of the promoters of the Dominion Steamship Line, the Nova Scotia Steamship Line, and he is behind some of the big mergers that are going to be made of all the steel industries of this country, in. which English capital is interested. He is still a director of the

Dominion Steamships and the Canada Steamship Company, and a few weeks ago, just at the opening of this Parliament, I saw in the corridors no less a gentleman than Colonel Grant .Morden who was at the back of the merger of the Canada Steamship Line, -who, I am told, with Sir Newton Moore and other prominent men who came from Australia to this country especially for the purpose of organizing this huge steel .merger, came here to get an assurance from the minister and the Government that this would go through in order that their interests would be safeguarded. This is the story, and I know it because some people have told me so, and they are just as reliable people as the minister.
I would ask the Minister of Marine for a few moments to get away from those big amounts of money and see that the little affairs of his department are better at- . tended to. I am making no special charge, but I wish to draw to the attention of the minister that in the administration of his department there are many little details which were better looked after formerly, but which since this big policy of shipbuilding has been inaugurated, have been absolutely ignored. For instance,-while this may not be quite relevant to the question under discussion, I want to give an example.-the officers and employees of the steamer Champlain were to be given uniforms by the Minister of Marine, an amount was voted in the Estimates and the uniforms were to have been made. A few weeks ago I received some letters that the men have not yet got their uniforms. When we have the minister juggling with millions every day, the small details are not attended to, . and the poor people, the officers and other employees of the departments and also the people who live along the north shore of the river St. Lawrence, suffer.


Mr. J. D. REID:: I did not intend taking part in this debate, and would .not have done so had it not been that I understood first that when I was in my room, having bgen called out of the house, a question was put that I should have been here to answer, and second in connection with this department-


William Duff: I should like to correct the minister, I did not say that the minister should have been here. The Minister of Marine said that the question was one which the Minister of Railways could answer.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps I should have said that the minister having stated that

I was not in the house,' the hon. member moved that the committee rise until I should be present. The only objection I could raise to this could be this. If the hon. member had waited a few minutes and had sent to my room, I would have been here in a minute to give the answer to which he was entitled.


William Duff: It was not my place to send for the minister.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon. member; perhaps it was not. But I might also add this, that if the hon. member had waited for a few minutes he would have had opportunity to receive an answer as I had intended to return shortly. Another reason is that the Canadian National railways have been brought into this discussion. I understand that the hon. member's question was: Do the Canadian steamships pay a business profits tax? I might answer the question in this way. These ships have not been in operation long enough for the question of the tax to come before the department. The business tax -would be for the present year as the ships operated for only p>art of last year. The hon. member knows that the Canadian Northern railway is paying taxes. These ships are being built and put in the name of a private corporation; they will be operated in the same manner and will be in the same position as ships owned by an opposing company, for instance, the Canadian Pacific Company, and any taxes that a private company will be called upon to pay by the Finance Department, this steamship company will also be called upon to pay as if it were a private company. I think that answers the question of the hon. member. Another point that was raised was this. I understand that the leader of the Opposition and those who sit behind him take the position that these ships, instead of being operated, should be sold.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I expressed no opinion whatever on that point.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that some members of the Opposition


William Duff: I did.


John Dowsley Reid: It does not include all the Opposition. As I understand it, the leader of the Opposition takes one position and other hon. members opposite take another.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, the leader of the Opposition, if I am mis-stating his opinion, can state so now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I expressed no opinion one way or the other.


John Dowsley Reid: This is a very important .question, and I should l-ike the leader of the Opposition to express his opinion upon it. At all events, it appears that some hon. gentlemen opposite are hostile to the Government owning and operating ships in connection with the Canadian National Railway system.


William Duff: Hear, hear.


John Dowsley Reid: Why this hostility? Is it for the purpose of crippling the Canadian National Railway system, Which will comprise some 22,000 miles of railway? Do I understand that the hon. gentleman expects the Dominion Government to operate-that system without vessels on both oceans?
. Mr. DUFF:	Certainly.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member wants us to operate the system without any vessels?


William Duff: Absolutely.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Lucien Cannon: What about Portland?


John Dowsley Reid: If my hon. friend will have patience, I will deal with Portland and other ports in a moment. I say that we cannot operate the National system successfully in competition with the great Canadian Pacific railway unless we have vessels working in conjunction with the railway.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does that 22,000 miles include the Grand Trunk?


John Dowsley Reid: The Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian North-

ern, and all Government lines. We have entered into an agreement with respect to the Grand Trunk which will be brought into force within a few days, so why should I not include the Grand Trunk in the mileage?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am not objecting; I simply wanted the facts.


Lucien Cannon: Why not take over the Canadian Pacific road?


Mr.   M@: It is solvent.


John Dowsley Reid: The hail, member for Quebec W^st finds fault with this Government for having done nothing, as he says, for the city of Quebec. Let me say to him that since Sir Robert Borden formed his Government in 1911, we have spent from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 on the city of Quebec, whereas in the fifteen years previous, when Sir Wilfrid La-urier was in power, less than $3,000,000 was spent on that city. So this Government has done pretty well, so far as the city of Quebec is concerned. My hon. friend who states that we have done nothing for the city of Quebec knows that we have built a 2,000,000-bushel elevator there; we have built the St. Malo shops, and have spent altogether some $25,000,000 on the city. We have made it at least equal to any other port so far as facilities are concerned. My Ivon, friend states that the city of Quebec is the terminal of the Transcontinental railway. I had always understood that Halifax and St. John were the terminals. I cannot for the life of me understand why somb hon. gentlemen opposite are so hostile to anything the Government may undertake for the purpose of putting the Canadian National Railway system in a position where it can compete with the great Canadian Pacific railway.
My hon. friend said that he had a right to criticise the administration of . Mr. Hanna. Of course he has that ri^ht. The only point I wish to make is ithat in justice to Mr. Hanna and the management of the system I hope the criticism will be fair and honest, and not made with the object of trying to injure the railway, or discouraging the management in such a way as to affect the operation of the system.
It seems to me that some hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to discourage the shipbuilding industry in this country. No one would regret it more than I, if by the- criticism that is being offered in this House, and which will go forth to the country, the shipbuilding industry in this country should [Mr. J. D. Reid 1
cease. It employs some 50,000 man, I believe.	[DOT]
Mr DUFF- About 23,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Well then, 23.000. The amount of money that is expended in wages in this industry is very large. Furthermore, every article that goes into the vessels that we are building is made in Canada from our natural resources. Even the ship pla-tes are made in this country. It seems to me that under a policy of this kind which keeps the money spent on the industry in this country, the shipbuilding industry, should be supported, and I for one am willing to do my part in encouraging the industry. Like other industries, it is for the advantage of Canada. The ships that we have built have done more to advertise Canada in certain countries, and to bring us trade, than has been done for many years past. Most of our .ships so far have been running to South America and the West Indies, with which formerly we had very little trade. They have brought \is closer together and have brought us trade, and will do more in that direction in the future. The same results will follow in other parts of the world when we get our shipbuilding programme completed. I for one urge upon every hon. member the vital importance of the national control of these ships in order that we may be able to compete with the great Canadian Pacific railway in the matter of freight charges on Canadian products, and be in a position to carry produce from the point of shipment to destination at cheaper rates than can be quoted by our great competitor. If we have vessels that can be operated in connection with our railways, with the advent of the time-which I do not believe is far distant-when we can make both ends meet in the working of the railway system,' we shall have solved the great problem of freight rates on the ocean, because we shall then be able to ship products from the place of production to its destination at probably a very much lower rate on the Atlantic than would be offered by our competitors if they had the practical control of the traffic from our Canadian ports.


Lucien Cannon: I asked the minister a
question in regard to the port of Portland and he said he would reply in a minute. I should like his answer.


John Dowsley Reid: What was the question?


Lucien Cannon: The minister told us that the merchant marine was designed to encourage the shipping of Canadian goods

through Canadian porta, and my question is, how can the Government reconcile that policy with the policy advocated last year when the Grand Trunk Bill was under consideration, of keeping Portland and the improvements in Portland, and spending money there, as a terminal?


John Dowsley Reid: Before we took over the Grand Trunk railway we had no control of the traffic over that rOad, but the position I take as Minister of Railways is that the products of this country should go by way of Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax so long as we have our boats to take them. The hon. member simply wishes to give the public the impression that now that we have taken over the Grand Trunk we are going to send everything through Portland. That is not the policy of the Government, and I do not believe the people would tolerate any effort to ship traffic away from our own Canadian ports.


Lucien Cannon: If the policy of the Government is as the minister states, why should the Government expropriate the American section of the Grand Trunk leading to Portland?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman
knows a great deal more than I do. I did not understand that the Government had so far taken any 'proceedings under the agreement, because this road has not been handed over- to the Grand Trunk Railway Company. How, therefore, can we take any action in the matter of expropriation?


Lucien Cannon: I should not like the minister to leave the House under an impression which I am loath to characterize as intentionally incorrect. Last year when the Grand Trunk debate was on the minister, as a railway expert, vouchsafed his help to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) who sometimes received that help with pleasure, and at other times, I venture to say, with mingled feelings. Last session the Minister of Railways often came into the House, as he has done tonight, with the avowed intention of throwing some light on the matter in order that we might understand it as perfectly as he thinks he understands it himself. He said repeatedly last year-and my memory is sound in this regard-that the section, of the Grand Trunk on American soil was highly important because it led to the port of Portland. This year, however, when we have tabled in this House the agreement between the Government and the Grand Trunk, the minister tells us that he has no
official knowledge of the proceedings taken by the Government in the* matter of expropriation. I can only say that if the minister desires to retain his reputation as a railway expert and be taken seriously by the people of the country and the members of ihis House, it is eminently desk-able that his speeches should be more studied. Proceedings are taken, the papers mention it, every member in the House is conversant with the subject, and people generally are aware of it; and the minister knows nothing about it he is the only person who is still in ignorance. This Government, which has diverted Canadian trade towards Portland, is composed of men who, when the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme was before the House, opposed it because they were not in favour of an altogether Canadian railway through Canada, but preferred at that time, as they prefer to-day, that only part of the railroad should be on Canadian soil; and they would rather give trade to -the Yankees than to Quebec. The minister says that the Borden Government did more .since the year 1911 for the province of Quebec than the Laurier Administration achieved during fifteen years. He mentioned the enormous sum of $25,000,000 spent in the city of Quebec. Now, how was that sum spent? Or, to be more precise, to be more in keeping with the methods generally adopted by this Government, 1 should ask, where was this money squandered? The Minister of Railways mentioned a grain elevator. I know that unfortunately, when he comes to our city, he remains only a few hours on his way to Saguenay, where he fishes trout or salmon; and the next time the hon. gentleman visits Quebec I invite him to call upon me and I shall be delighted to show him around the harbour. I will show him that- famous grain elevator of which he has boasted so profusely. The shell of the elevator is there, but it is empty. There is no grain in it, and there never was; and, if this Government is retained in power, there never will be.
My hon. friend also mentioned another bit of construction work on which he said millions had been spent, the workshops in St. Malo. Has the minister developed of late a sense of humour? Is it his desire to laugh at the population of Quebec and their representatives in this House? We know what the St. Malo workshops are to-day. They were to be the greatest workshops in Canada, according to the plans laid down by the Laurier Government. But this Government, so r far as those workshops are

concerned, has pursued the same policy it has followed in. connection with everything else, and that is to belittle the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier thinking that it was given to small men to render as small as themselves a big statesman such as Sir Wilfrid Laurier was. The works are there, the minister can come on one of his trips to Quebec and we will their find if he has., any excuses to make about the millions spent in Quebec for building shops. Where were the millions spent? The millions were spent in Levis where the money was given to the friends of the Government to buy fields, property and lots so that the friends of the Government would make some money.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must also draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that we are discussing the amount required for the construction of vessels and the carrying out of the Government's shipbuilding programme. I did not interrupt the hon. member when he was answering the remarks made by the minister concerning money spent in the city of Quebec, but when he talks about there being scandals at Levis and elsewhere he is certainly far away from the question.


Lucien Cannon: I bow to your decision, Mr. Chairman. I think we have enough scandals in our own city without crossing the river and going over to Levis. I shall confine myself to Quebec. Millions, said the minister, have been spent in Quebec. A few months ago some western members came to our, city, and in company with several of my colleagues I took
10 p.m. the western members around the city and showed them what I thought were the points of interest. We came, on a street called St. Paul street, to a bam, a shed, a shack, half falling into ruins. One of the hon. members from the west-if I am npt mistaken it was the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt)-asked me what that was. I said: " That is the terminal station of the Canadian National railways in the city of Quebec/' I will show where the minister has spent other millions in the city of Quebec. Right under the Dufferin Terrace, to which thousands of visitors come every summer to admire the magnificent scenery of the St. Lawrence and the Laurentian mountains, at their very feet this 'Government has erected a building which is a disgrace, an eyesore to every one accustomed to view things which are not ugly. It is a match box. That match box has been erected by this

munificent Borden Government, which has spent millions of dollars according to the Minister of Railways. The city of Quebec gave them a magnificent property worth over flQ0,000 and in return this Government, to show their good faith, to show the interest they had in our city and district, erected a building worth about $25,000 which resembled more a match box than any railway station I ever looked at. The Minister of Railways will tell us that the city of Quebec is being treated better than she was ever treated under the Laurier Government. We had a line direct from Montreal ,to Quebec run by the Canadian Northern railway-a short line, beautifully located and running along the shore of the St. Lawrence. When the Minister of Railways took charge of the Canadian Northern this line, where there had been a slight landslide, was never repaired and although the line cost millions of dollars it is not even put into use. If a man wants to leave Quebec to go to Montreal, using what was formerly the Canadian Northern railway line, it is a trip that takes twelve hours. What about competing with the Canadian Pacific? The minister tells us that the only desire he has in his heart-[DOT]
The CIIAIRA1AN:	Order. I must call
the attention of the hon. member again to the fact that we are discussing the Government shipbuilding programme and the item of $20,000,000 to be voted therefor. I am sure the hon. member himself will reali,'.e that the competition of the Canadian National railways with the Canadian Pacific between Montreal and Quebec is not included in that item.


Lucien Cannon: He mentioned it; that was part of his argument.


Georges Henri Boivin: Even if the minister
did mention it I rule that it is out of order.


Lucien Cannon: Why did you not so rule before?


Georges Henri Boivin: Because I hoped the
hon. gentleman would come back to the subject in the course of his lengthy remarks.
Mr, CANNON: When the Minister of Rail ways spoke a moment ago his main argu ment was that ships are necessary to run our Canadian railways and that he wishes to have shipping lines as well as railway lines to compete with the Canadian Pacific. The policy of the Government, and especially the policy of the Minister of Railways, is in flagrant contradiction to the argument brought forward by him to-night

Go
in the House of Commons at least as far as the city of Quebec is concerned. Establishing lines of railways to compete with the Canadian Pacific. As I said, from Montreal to Quebec, it takes twelve hours on the Canadian Northern while it takes five on the Canadian Pacific. Not only that but the Canadian Northern line in the city of Quebec does not even touch the waterfront. It may be that our railway expert, the minister, wishes to complete his magnificent scheme for the development of Canada by introducing a third branch into his department, that of aeroplanes, but unless aeroplanes were introduced in the city of Quebec my hon. friend, coming in his private car, would not be able to reach the waterfront on this line. Quebec has been badly treated by this Government. Has Quebec been badly treated on account of her attitude towards this Government? I do not know.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. My hon. friend must remember that we are not here to discuss the treatment given to the city of Quebec by the present Government. We are discussing the shipbuilding programme of the Government. He must, according to the rule, remain strictly within the item of discussion.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, I do not
wish to discuss how badly Quebec has been treated but I wish to underline the remarks made by the minister as to the magnificent treatment given to Quebec by the Government. Now a shipping poliey is being considered. What will the, Government do for the city of Quebec as regards shipping?. Can we expect more in the future than we have had in the past? As I have said many times in this- House we have lots of confidence in the management of shipping under the very-able direction of the Minister of Marine. He does not claim, that he is a marine expert. as my hon. friend (Air. J. D. Reid) claims to be a railway expert. The Minister of Mai'ine is modest. He has not like the Minister of Railways been a minister for years. He has not yet forgotten his modesty. He has not, perhaps, ceased long enough to be a Liberal and has not become like the Minister of Railways a thorough Tory, and here let me say that I never met a thorough Tory who was modest, either in his person or in his demands.
I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to one last point, and I hope that in doing so I will be in order. I do not think that he is much better acquainted with the Canadian Northern railway crowd than the Minister of Marine. The latter is starting a new experiment. I would ask 12
the Minister of Railways to be charitable enough to give pointers and information to our less informed Minister of Marine. The Minister of Railways has dealt with Alac-kenzie and Mann for over six years. He knows Mr. Hanna, he knows Sir Donald Mann, and he knows Sir William Mackenzie-in fact, I think he knows every prominent man in that crowd; the Minister of Marine does not. I will therefore ask the Minister of Railways to keep his own friends with him and not let that gang enter the office of the Minister of Alarine. Unfortunately the Minister of Railways told us that the Government had decided that in Canada's new policy it was imperative for the same men to run the trains as to run the ships. I say that this should not be. It is bad enough to have the old men of the Canadian Northern whom the ATinister of Railways knows so well, bad enough to have them again in harness running our Canadian railways to ruin, but this Government should see that the ships are protected from their clutches. Those ships were most unfortunate last fall. One was stranded at, the very spot where the Minister of Railways, after strenuous days of work, goes to take his rest fishing salmon, at the opening of the Saguenay river. There she lies, one of the first ships built by Canada, affording a very' sad spectacle. Another ship went further down the river and got caught in the ice, and she was experimenting to show the rest of the world that winter navigation was an easy task. A third ship disappeared on the coast of Nova Scotia, doubtless not having received instruction and advice from my hon. friend from Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Butts). This has been a poor start. The Minister of Marine ought now to change his policy and take control of matters into his own hands. For-those hands are very competent, the reputation that the Atinister of Marine has left in connection with the Harbour Commission of Alontreal is one of the best. Therefore he should take over the control of matters himself instead of having Alackenzie and Alann strand our ships after having wrecked railroads.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I wish to say a
word or two in reference to the port of Quebec. I concur almost altogether in what the hon. members from that famous city have said, with the exception of the statement of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, which was if I understood him correctly, that no grain had recently passed through the grain elevators at that port. Very large quantities of grain have passed through the elevators there. I am



not a pessimist as far as the port of Quebec is concerned. It is one of the best equipped ports in the North American continent; and now that the National Transcontinental railway is in running order not only the preseent government-owned ships but the larger ships that I hope will shortly be on the St. Lawrence route will make Quebec their terminus. I look forward to the port of Quebec doing a very much larger business than it has ever done in its past history for it is one of Canada's national ports and will be treated as such'. There is no warmer advocate of the further development of trade through the port of Quebec than I am; and I can assure hon. gentlemen personally, and also on behalf of the Government, that every thing will be done not only to make the port of Quebec what its parliamentary representatives quite properly desire it to be, but what the situation of Quebec and the facilities which it possesses should render it-a port doing fifty or one hundred times more business than it is doing at the present time. I for one am satisfied that more freight is going to pass through Quebec and more siiips are going to stop there. Naturally, owing to the existing depth of water large ships stop there at present and the larger vessels that are to come will also do so. I hope that a year from now, if we are spared. I will be able to show hon. gentlemen that the business of the port of Quebec has grown and has exceeded in volume anything it has ever done in the past.


Jacques Bureau: Where does Three Rivers come in?


William Duff: We are all pleased with the speech which the Minister of Railways gave us this evening, although I do not know whether 1 should apologize for bringing him in, or thank him for coming. The minister may know a great deal about railways but he has certainly shown by his speech tonight that he knows nothing about shipping; and when any member of the Government tells this committee that we cannot run railways without ships I think he had better go away back and sit down, and learn. If the operation of ships and railways is to form part of the Government's policy why should the Government not operate farms also? Why should it not go into the West, cultivate a couple of million acres, and produce stuff for this great railway that he talks about to carry to the seaboard to be there placed on steamships and transported across the ocean? The minister rather insinuated, if I might be allowed to use the expression, that if the Canadian Mercantile Marine was

not built and operated so as to convey across the ocean the products to be carried by the Canadian National railways from the West the Canadian Pacific railway would gobble up the business. Of course, that is the old game,-trying to make out that we are in favour of the Canadian Pacific and against the nationalization or public ownership of railways. But that argument does not go-very far, because it will be a long time before the tramp steamers that the Government are building will compete with the steamers of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It is useless for (the minister to draw a comparison between the Canadian Pacific steamers which carry goods brought from the West to Montreal and St. John on the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian Government steamers which take goodjs from Montreal, Quebec, St. John, or Halifax, because the two classes of steamers are quite different. The buyer in Liverpool or in Lop-don knows exactly when the Canadian Pacific steamers will arrive, but the tramp steamers cannot operate on any specific schedule; consequently the shippers will not send on the tramp steamers the same class of goods that they will send on steamers that carry both passengers and freight.
The /Minister of Railways knows so much about shipping that he has told us that through the construction and operation of these ships a great deal of business had been opened up between Canada and South America and the West Indies. But that is not the case, because this business was opened up long before the Canadian Government built and operated these ships, and although I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet, I venture the assertion that that trade will be there when within five years from now the Canadian Government shipq are scrapped and sold as old junk.
But -what aroused the anger of the Minister of Railways was my simple question whether the business profits' tax would be paid by the company operating these steamers. The minister rather sidestepped the question by saying, in the first place, that these steamers had not been operated for a year. Of course, I have to take the-minister's word, but my memory is fairly good, and I think he will not deny that some of these vessels have been operating for nearly two years. Now is the time-when every business man must file a statement with the Inspector of Taxation concerning his business profits. What I want to know is whether this marine company is filing a statement similar to that which

every private shipbuilding company has to file. Just here I would like the Minister of Marine to answer two questions that I put to him this afternoon. First, how much of the $1,400,000 which he says was the profit in connection with the operation of nineteen ships, was placed to rest account for depreciation?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I explained this afternoon that the profit statement had been arrived at after providing for depreciation, interest on the cost of the ship, insurance, overhead charges and operating expenses. The amount allowed for depreciation is, I understand, five per cent. The hon. member will agree that that is a fair amount to allow for depreciation on a new ship. I repeat the statement I made this afternoon that none of these nineteen ships have been in commission a year. Some of them have made only one voyage; others have made only two.


William Duff: Then, there was the question of sterling exchange. With regard to the difference between the cost of vessels here and the cost in England, was sterling exchange figured on the basis of $4.86, or at the current rate?
Mr. BAflXiANTYNE:' At $4.86.


William Duff: Then the minister did not give the House proper information this afternoon when he made a comparison between the cost of vessels in Canada and the cost of vessels in England, because everybody knows that six months ago English sterling was quoted at' only $3.60.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: He would have to make a new estimate every week.


William Duff: I thank my hon. friend for that suggestion. But the price per ton should be figured either at the average rate or at the highest rate, whichever the minister likes. It was not fair to make a comparison based on a rate of $4.86 for the pound sterling.
Mr. BAjLiLANTYNE : It really does not .make very much difference, because during the past two years the cost of some types of ships has been about the same in the yards of the United Kingdom as in the Canadian yards. The point I tried to make was that during the past two years ships could be built as cheaply in the yards of Canada as in the yards of the United Kingdom.	,


William Duff: That does not alter the fact that if a man wanted to buy a ship in the British Isles he would pay for it at the
42J
prevailing rate of exchange; consequently, as I say, it was not fair for the minister to base his comparison upon a rate of $4.86 for the pound sterling.
The minister has kindly told me that the amount put to rest account for depreciation on these ships is five per cent. For the sake of argument we will say that that is a fair amount,,but these ships are new, and during the first year new ships require hardly any repairs. The minister will find out before he is a manager of ships very long -I beg his pardon; he transfers them to his friend the Minister of Railways-the Minister of Railways will find out that five per Cent will not go far for depreciation.
It has been stated that nineteen ships earned $1,400,000; that is about $73,000 per ship. Well, the Minister of Marine has no occasion to congratulate himself upon a vessel of 4,000 or 5,000 tons earning only ,$73,000. That is a mere bagatelle, and tl^e only reason why they earned that is because of the present abnormal conditions-conditions which will not be prevailing in the years to come. If they could earn only $73,000 with freight rates as they are to-day, they will earn practically nothing when the freight rates are reduced. Then, from the $73,000 has not been deducted the business profits tax which the ordinary shipbuilding company has to pay. Next year the net profit will ibe reduced a good deal by the .payment of this tax.
I am opposed to the Government operation of ships, because it is not fair to private companies or private interests'. It will discourage the building of 'ships by private interests. There is no reason why the (Government should enter upon a shipbuilding programme now that the war is over. The minister says that if they have not the ships he/cannot carry liis goods after they arrive at the seaboard. Well, how many railways in the United States have steamship lines? Perhaps one or two, but most of them have no steamships; they go out in the open market and make arrangements for the carrying of their freight, and that is what, this Government could do. It is not necessary that the Minister of Railways should have ships to carry the freight which comes over his line from Winnipeg or other western points to ports on the Atlantic ocean. Moreover, in the next year or two when freight rates reach a normal figure, the Minister of Marine and the Minister of Railways and the Government will find that instead of making $73,000, they will lose that much and a lot more. In addition to that, the property is decreasfiGO

in" in value and it will cost a great deal more to keep it in repair. The Government, therefore, will find that instead of having a bonanza as thejr think they have, they will have a white elephant on their hands.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If the Minister of Marine
sent a hurried message out to have his colleague the Minister of Railways come in and help him through with this, item, I am afraid he- made a mistake in doing so, because the Minister of Railways has put before the Committee arguments that must be answered. I suppose the Minister of Railways was hurriedly aroused from his afterdinner rest and came into the House somewhat ^excited, and he possibly went a little further than die would otherwise have gone. But he having gone so far, we .must find out just what this means, and we are getting some information, even if we are getting it piecemeal and through somebody getting rather excited and saying things that possibly he would not otherwise have said. The Minister of Railways says tonight that we must oontinue in this shipbuilding programme because we cannot successfully operate 22,000 miles of railway unless we have nineteen ships to help us do so. When I asked him if the 22,000 miles of railway included the Grand Trunk Railway system that was to be taken over under the Act which was passed at the last session of Parliament and under an agreement that lias already been entered into between the Government of Canada and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, he said it did. Then, this only loads up that system with $75,000,000 over and above the $700,000,000 or $800,000,000 of ,a burden which the people #f Canada were obliged to shoulder under the legislation passed last session. My hon. friend says that he as Minister of Railways is going to see to it that not one pound of freight that is brought from the West down to the city of Montreal is going io find an outlet through .any other ports than our own Canadian ports. How does ho get past the statement which he has made many times in this House, namely, that he as Minister of Railways or the Gov-cinment has nothing whatever to do now with the operation of the Canadian National railways; that that system is in the hands of a Board of Management, land the Government is absolutely cut clear and loose from any interference with the operation of that railway? That is what we were tojd last year. I want to ask the minister this question. When that load of wheat that he,
{Mr. Duff.]
with his fertile imagination, loaded up in the great West a few moments ago, is brought down over the Canadian National railways' to the city of Montreal, if Mr. Hanna, or the Board of Management that has charge of the Canadian National railways, gives an order to take that load to Portland, will my Iron, friend interfere and have it sent down to St. John or Halifax to be shipped from there? Can my hom friend do that under the arrangement he has today with this Board of Management of the Canadian National railways?
So much for wlhat the Minister of Railways has said. I want to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballan-tyne) a question. I believe he said that there were seventeen different shipbuilding plants in the Dominion of Canada -with which he had entered into arrangements for the building of vessels. I want to ask him if the Government have in any way assisted in the construction of these plants for the different companies who are building these ships.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In no way whatever.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I w'ant to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that we have from the Minister of Marine this afternoon and evening the information that he has given contracts for the building of 63 vessels of different tonnage and types to seventeen different companies. I want to protest in the strongest manner possible that it is not reasonable to expect that we shall get the best possible solution of the difficulties that arise in giving out contracts by one man being able to go to seventeen different contracting firms in the Dominion of Canada and say to them: I want you to build me so many vessels. I give my hon. friend all credit for doing the very best he can and getting the best prices he can from these firms. But it is not natural for water to run up hill; and it is not natural and not a proper business method for my hon. friend to go to the different shipbuilding firms in the Dominion and ask them what they will build a vessel for. The only safe and reasonable way to carry out the construction of these vessels for which we are to-night asking the people of Canada to Shoulder a burden of $20,000,000, is for tenders to be called for, and then company "A" does not know what company "B" is going to tender, and company "B" does not know what company "C" is going to tender, and so on down all the line of the seventeen different companies. Instead of that,

contracts are being entered into behind closed doors without the people of Canada having any opportunity of expressing an opinion, without any tenders having 'been asked, without any person but the seventeen different companies knowing that any such contracts were to be let. My hon. friend lets'these contracts; he comes back *to the Cabinet Council and he makes a recommendation that a certain contract be let to a certain individual company, and an Order in Council is passed. That is all the people of Canada have 'to say about this expenditure of $75,000,000 for the purpose of building ships without which the Minister of Railways says he cannot successfully operate 22,000 miles of railway, part of which is a bankrupt railway that he is taking out of the hands of individuals and companies in which some of our friends in different parts of the Dominion of Canada are deeply interested.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: not his prejudice, legitimate prejudices perhaps, against the city and port of Quebec carry him away to such an extent that he will not put into practise his more practical views, let not his reason be overwhelmed by what might be termed his political emotions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am sure my hon. friend is aware that public tenders are as a rule called for, and quite properly so, but we could not follow that policy in ordering ships. For argument's sake, suppose I had called for public tenders for six ships of 8,400 tons. Suppose that the Vickers Company, of Montreal, and five or six other shipbuilders had tendered, and that the Davie Shipbuilding Company, of Lauzon, which has not the facilities for turning out that number of ships except after a very long time, were the lowest tenderers. The Government would have no option but to award them the contract. We would not be able to distribute the orders. I quite understand the point of the leader of the (Opposition, and that is, the desirability of safeguarding the public interest. The statute from which he has quoted makes it plain that the minister has power to use his best judgment, and the Government to purchase by the best means what it requires. I do not know of any method that would so well safeguard the public interest as the course we have followed. I believe we got lower prices than we should have obtained by public tender. When the Government asked for prices on ships, as I have already twice stated to-day, they did not necessarily take the prices that were quoted. If a price was considered satisfactory it was accepted and if it was too high it was of course refused. By the method we followed we were in a position to distribute the business evenly over seventeen yards at a cost probably lower than if we had called for public tenders in the way suggested by the leader of the Opposition. It must be borne in mind also that time is an important feature of the programme, and we could not allow one yard to take more business than it was capable of turning out. |Some yards have two berths, some four and some six, and all these facts have to be taken into consideration in allotting the wrork. It was desirable to distribute the contracts in such a way that labour would not be concentrated in one particular place, but that workers would be evenly employed throughout the seventeen yards from Halifax to Prince Rupert. I have already said that the Government are at an end of their steel

programme, and if I thought that the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition, whose opinion I regard very highly, was of any practical importance I would gladly recommend it to the Government. But from the business experience that I have gained during the last thirty or thirty-five years, I am bound to say that I think the Government have followed the best possible course.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With all deference to the minister, I would point out that what I quote from the statute is part of the law of the land.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It gives the minister an option.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There may be reasons of expediency of one kind or another why it should be advisable to allow the minister to distribute work from the Atlantic to the Pacific and allot it to different shipyards; but this Parliament has certainly laid it down in black and white that, in the matter of public contracts, where the amount exceeds $5,000 there shall be no option on the part of the minister. The minister says that the statute gives him the right to do as he thinks best. Let me once again quote the section:
Whenever any works are to be executed under the direction of any department of the Government, the minister having charge of such department shall Invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works.
That is the law. There are certain exceptions. The minister referred to subsection three, which provides that where the estimated cost of the work is less than $5,000 and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders-


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
says " That is it." He will note, however, that this sub-section applies only to works under $5,000. But the contracts under consideration vary in amounts from half a million to two million dollars apiece. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is in his place and I am quite prepared to leave it to him to say as to whether or not my interpretation of the statute is not literally correct, namely, that the law provides that where a contract is of an amount over $5,000 there shall not be, except under certain specified circumstances, any option to the minister to distribute the work as he likes. He is obliged to call for tenders by public advertisement.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Are there not two qualifying subsections?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; first,
subsection "A" which provides against any pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest. When speaking before, I pointed out that possibly these contracts v^ere awarded in war-tin e, when there was a pressing emergency.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Most of them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister, however, is inclined to base his right in the matter on a section which, I am afraid, cives him no ground whatever to stand on .


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Most of these contracts were entered into under the' War Measures Act, but even if they were not made under that Act, and putting aside altogether the legal aspect of the argument,
1 think that any business man in this House will agree with me that it would be unwise to attempt to order ships under public tender by leason of the wide distribution of the yards. Some of these yards are large and some small, and it Was the desire of the Government not only to get the ships as quickly as possible but to have the labour distributed evenly throughout the country.


William Cameron Edwards: Will the leader of the Opposition be good enough to read section "B."?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will read the entire clause:
Whenever any works are to be executed under the direction of any department of the Government, the minister having charge of such department shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works, except in cases
(a)	of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest; or
(b)	in which, from the nature of the work, it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by officers and servants of the department ; or
(c)	where the estimated cost of the work Is less than $5,000, and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
I contend that a point of order could be raised in this connection, and would be sustained if it were raised. I do not raise it. however, because I have no wish in any way to delay the programme that the Government has under way. I believe it was started in a period of war. These contracts have already been awarded, and to raise a point at this stage would only be to delay the final execution of the work. But I do say that we should have from the Government, before allowing this item to pass, a declaration as to future contracts. The ground the minister has taken at present I do not think we can permit to stand for a


C64 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
moment, because it would mean that, in the future he would feel at liberty to award contracts as he pleased regardless of the law of the land. There are two courses open to the minister. lie can either get the law changed; or, if it is to remain as it is, obey it; it is part of the obligation of every hon. member of the House to uphold the law as it stands.	-
Mr. DOHERTY:: I think it is quite clear that without getting outside of the terms of the law, what -was done was perfectly justifiable. What was pressing to get done was precisely to get the whole Shipbuilding capacity of this country at work, and this end could not be attained if you called for tenders and proceeded to allot the work to the lowest tenderer. It was probably as important to get the shipyards all to work, as it was to get the ships themselves.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the minister speaking in reference to the war period?


Charles Joseph Doherty: What is being done
now is merely completing what was started during the war. As to a declaration of future action, there is no doubt that the Government intends that, when the exceptional circumstances that prevail in the present instance do not apply, they will be governed by the law as it stands, so long as that law remains on the statute book. But I think that a moment's reflection will show that the condition here comes very well within the first clause which gives the minister an option in cases of pressing necessity. It must be quite clear that if we gave all the work to the lowest tenderer we would experience considerable delay in getting the ships; and super-added to this fact, there was the desirability, apart altogether from the necessity for the ships; of providing work for the entire shipbuilding facilities of Canada. When you say that you should call for tenders from all the shipbuilding plants of Canada, in the nature of things you could not do this particular thing in that particular way. You could not get the result. You could not get the ships which we were pressing to get promptly and as early as possible. If you called for tenders, gave the contracts to the lowest tenderers and waited until the lowest tenderers could get the ships finished you would be waiting still.	[DOT]


Mr. W. C. KENNEDY:: I listened with a great deal of interest to the explanation given by the hon. the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) as to why he did not ask for tenders, and I was not convinced by what
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
lie told us. From a purely business standpoint it was proper to advertise. We do not expect one shipyard is going to build all the ships required by'"the country, but surely the hon. gentleman could ask for tenders and limit the time that any one tenderer might have to build a ship. The practice of allowing a minister or a Government to spend $75,000,000 of the people's money by arrangement with shipbuilding companies and deciding how these contracts shall be distributed from Halifax to Vancouver is wrong. It is not in the interest of the people that this should be done and it is not the proper way to carry on .public business. I listened very attentively to the minister this afternoon and I regret very much that we did not have the pleasure of hearing his answer to the question put by my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) this evening. My hon. friend asked: Where is the $20,000,000 to come from? He was ruled out of order by the Chairman on the ground that this is not a matter to be taken up at this time. It seems to me that it is good business to find out before you arrange to spend your money where it is coming from. I think that is what the people want to know. I believe the statement by the hon. gentleman showed that we were making money out of the steamship business but I think he will agree with me that conditions are abnormal. He cannot expect that freights will continue where they are to-day. He knows, and nobody knows better than he, that it is only a matter of a short time, until freights will decrease in volume; there will not be so many cargoes to carry, some of the ships -will probably have difficulty in securing business, and we will consequently operate at a loss.
I notice that there have been a great many recommendations in the press recently as to the desirability of establishing a shipbuilding business in Canada. When I read these articles in the newspapers I sometimes wonder where they emanate from, and I am not quite sure that this insistent demand that the Government shall keep on shipbuilding does not emanate from the gentlemen who are profiting out of it I am not quite, sure that they are not behind the movement to create a public sentiment in support of shipbuilding. Might I suggest to my hon. friend that those people who have made so much money out of building ships when the war was on should continue the business without asking the Government to guarantee their profit now the war is over. What they are doing is what the railway builders did in the past. Contractors built railways, made their profit, but when the profits

dwindled and deficits occurred they handed these railways over to the Government and put the burden on the shoulders of the people. These people who are in the shipbuilding business have been making their profits and they desire to continue (Making profits but they want to hand the business of operating over to the people so that the people will pay the deficit on- operations.
_ The important question in connection with this matter is, I repeat, that which was asked by my hon. friend from Pontiac. It is true that the question should be discussed on the Budget but I believe that the Minister of Finance will have enough to do to handle the finances of this country without putting the people into a business that is going to lose them money. It is not good business and the people insist that this Government should carry on their affairs with reasonable business caution. It is not good business to ask the people to invest $20,000,000 when we are told that the shipbuilding business will have to be subsidized. The hon. the Minister o,f Marine would not put his own money into a prospect if he thought that it would be unsuccessful with a possible loss within a few years; and if that is the case why should he put the money of the people into this enterprise now? I listened to his remarks withrefer-ence to the cost and I was very much impressed with his statement that we were building ships at a reasonable price in Canada to-day. We were told that we were building ships at approximately $160 per deadweight ton. But the hon. gentleman knows full well that we wall have to compete in a short time with ships that were built in pre-war days at from $60 to $70 a ton. There is only one way to meet that competition and that is to take the loss because lower freights will get the business. As against what we are doing here, the United States Government are selling -their ships and I am told that they are so anxious to get out of the business that they are willing to sell them at $100 a ton. At the very time that they are willing to take a loss and go out of the business we are going into the business, putting $20,000,000 more of the people's1 money into it and, then we are told that we will have to subsidize it very shortly. On top of that we are told that $75,000,000 of the people's money is spent without a single tender being asked for. It is all right for hon. gentlemen to spend their own money if they want to, but they 11 p.m. are the trustees of the public and they have no right to spend the people's money without giving^ the
people the protection of public tenders and full knowledge as to whom these contracts have been awarded and why.
There is also the question of where these ships are going and what freights they are to carry. The hon. gentleman told us today that one of these steamers had left Vancouver for Australia. He did not tell us what she was bringing back from Australia. I think we know pretty well just what they export from Australia. They export wool, hides, wheat and tallow. They will not bring that kind of a cargo back to Canada. They will probably go to England and from England they will get a cargo to bring back here. There is no objection to that; if we are in the carrying trade that is good business. But why should we spend cur money to establish and operate a line to build up business between Australia and England? It is not good business. We were also told that these ships would carry cargoes to South America. What do they carry from South America?-cattle, grain and hides. These they take to the English market. This is all right for Great Britain, a great food-consuming country. They send out their finished products, bring back raw materials and get cargoes both ways. We do not want any wheat in this country, we are not looking for cattle, we are not asking for mutton; and yet these are the things that are being carried from Australia and the Argentine to England. The conditions in Canada do not parallel those of Great Britain, consequently there is not the same possibility of a mercantile marine being a financial success. These, amongst others, are the reasons why I am opposed to this vote and I shall oppose it here and shall also oppose it when we come to its consideration in the Budget.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we ought to clear up this point in regard to future contracts. I am sorry that the Prime Minister, or the Acting Prime Minister, is not here to speak but possibly the Minister of Justice could make a statement on behalf of the Government as to whether in regard to future contracts the Government will adopt the policy of calling for tenders as required by statute.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Government contemplates in future abiding by the provisions of the law as it understands it has abided by the provisions of the law in the past. If the circumstances which seem to have existed in this case, and which made it necessary and justifiable under the provisions of the statute to take the course we

did, arise again, I am not in a position to say that the same thing would not be done. But the Government, as I understand, will apply and conform to the general rule of the law save where the circumstances set forth in the law as justifying an exception shall arise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the minister say whether he thinks that this particular expenditure would be justified under the exception with reference to inviting tenders provided for by subsection (c) which says:
Where the estimated cost of a work is less than $5,000 and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not prepared to
say the cost of the work should be under $5,000. The first subsection, if I remember correctly, does amply cover the particular case here where there was the necessity of getting ships in the shortest possible time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Justice takes a view quite different from the view of the Minister of Marine as to his rights under this particular section.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the leader of the Opposition will allow me. My view is exactly the same as that of my colleague; you have got to take all the sections together.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not know whether as a layman I am not justified in putting forward my view here where so many lawyers are talking. It strikes me that the law as quoted by the leader of the Opposition covers this case exactly although not in section C nor perhaps in section A. - If I understood the Minister of Marine correctly he gave us to understand that these vessels were more expeditiously and economically constructed under the plan adopted by the Government than they covild have been' under any other plan. If I am correctly repeating what I understand the minister to say then you have the reason given in section B.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


William Cameron Edwards: I think so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has not observed that section (B) states " more economically or expeditiously executed by ofii-cers of the department." This work has been done by shipbuilding companies. I will read my hon. friend the section so that he will see the point for himself:

in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department.
I think that answers my hon. friend's point. This work has not been done by officers of the department, it has been done by contractors.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Andrew Ross McMaster: This item should certainly not carry-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -and the. more so in view of the refusal of the members of this Government to accede to the most reasonable suggestion of the leader of the Opposition that in future they would interpret the law as. demanding that in connection with the proposed expenditure of $20,000,000 of the people's money the law should be applied as in ordinary cases. The war is over and it is of paramount necessity that the Government of Canada should realize it. They were given during the war very wide powers. Let me tell them, with all respect, that, the people of Canada, and His Majesty's loyal Opposition as representing a large proportion of those people, do not propose that they should be allowed to carry on as they were allowed to do during the war. The law is absolutely plain. The Minister of Justice nods his head with confirmatory action. I am, Mr. Chairman, specially qualified to speak upon this question because when a law student I sat not at the feet of Gamaliel but at the feet of the Minister of Justice. Now let me read section 36:
Whenever any works are to be executed under the direction of any department of. the Government, the minister having charge of such department shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works-[DOT]
That is the general principle. Here are the three exceptions:
Except in cases-
(a) of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest.
Now the war being over how can any one pretend that there is a pressing emergency which would enable the Government of this country to over-ride the principle of the law. There is no such pressing emergency.


William Cameron Edwards: How do you know?
You have got to back that up with more than your statement. Your statement is not sufficient. '


Andrew Ross McMaster: For this .reason: We and the LTnited States are the two great

nations of this continent. Our economic life, our industrial development, and our trade relationships with the rest of the world are very much on a parity. The United States instead of going ahead with their shipbuilding programme are selling the ships which they built during the war. That is one good reason. Now a "pressing emergency" is one in which delay would be injurious to the public interest-not to private interest- not to the interest of one yard as opposed to another yard but to the interest of the whole public of Canada. I do not believe that any member who supports this Government, if he were, talking to me quietly outside of the House, would contend that there was any such pressing emergency at this time requiring the immediate construction of ships in this country and that this protection of the public interest-this protection to safe and sound and honest business-should be disregarded. Now what is the next exception?


William Cameron Edwards: May I ask my hon.
friend a question?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would be delighted.


William Cameron Edwards: That may be. Is it not true that after an agreement was entered into by which wheat and flour passed freely between, Canada and the United States, the latter country saw fit to place an embargo on Canadian wheat going into that country? That is true, I think I am stating the facts correctly. I think one reason why the United States did that was because they wanted to make sure that they could secure the necessary ships to get their own wheat out of the country, and so they prevented Canadian wheat entering the United [DOT]States, and going to their own ports and probably taking up the shipping space that would be required to ship their own wheat. If that is true I do not think we should be placed in the position of depending upon the United States or any other country for ships; we ought to have ships to transport our own goods. There you see the public interest, and not a private interest. It is the interest of all those who have goods to ship.


Andrew Ross McMaster: In answer to what has been rather a "shorter catechism" than a question by the hon. gentleman, I would say that you cannot regard a condition as a pressing emergency when there is a very serious difference of opinion in the country as to whether the Government's programme is a wise or unwise one. The words "pressing emergency" must mean an emergency
which is so pressing that there can be no practical difference of opinion among the people of the country as to the necessity. For instance, when war breaks out, if it is neeesarv to build a ship or construct a bridge-


Georges Parent: Or repair a wharf.
Mr. McMASTER-or repair a wharf, something of that kind, the minister in charge would be able to do it. There you would have a presing emergency; we can all imagine many instances of that kind. But here is the continuation of a shipbuilding programme which has been going on for several years and which I cannot regard as being a "pressing emergency " in any way, shape or manner. >
The second exception to the general rule to which I invite attention is:
(b) in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department.
That exception does not apply. The third exception is:
Where the estimated cost of the work is less than $5,000 and it appears to the minister in view of the nature of the work that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
In order to come within this third exception the estimated cost of the work must be less than $5,000 and it must be the opinion of the minister that it would not be wise to ask for tenders. Certainly these exceptions do not apply; therefore the only ground that the minister has to stand on is the view that a pressing emergency exists and that to fail to act as he proposes would be injurious to the public interest. Now, believing sincerely that this policy is a mistake and that the Government is not a proper agency for the operation of tramp steamers, I think that the public interest would be better served by the abandonment of the scheme. But certainly there is no such emergency as would take this matter out of the plain principle of the law, a principle which every man administering the ihoney of others must desire to adhere to, namely, that he shall openly ask for tenders for anything that he has to buy or any work that he wishes t'o be performed in order that he may be able to say to those whoSe money he is administering: If it costs more than you thought it should cost, the fault is not mine: I gave full notice to every one and that is the lowest price at which after public tender and public ad-rertisement I could get the work done. I ask the Government to fall in with my


Georges Parent: How much of the $40,000,000 voted last year has been spent in the construction of the twenty-five steamers now operated by the Canadian National Railway system?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The amount spent
up to date is $24,000,000.


Georges Parent: On March 11, 1920, the following questions which I had previously put to the Minister of Railways were1 answered:
1.	Has the Canadian National Railway at the present time twenty-four or any number of vessels plying in various routes?
2.	Jf so, how and on what terms or conditions have said vessels been acquired by said Canadian National Railway, and what is the name of each steamer?
3.	Who is the present owner of each of said steamers or vessels?
4.	Wliat is the tonnage of each?
5.	What port or ports is each one of them plying between?
The answers given by the minister were as follows:
1.	Yes-25.
2.	Vessels are being operated as provided for by Order in Council passed June 2, 1919.

In passing, I may remark that a reference to an Order in Council Which had not been made public is hardly an answer to the question. However, that is not the point that I want to emphasize. On March 11 we are told that the Canadian National railways are operating twenty-five steamers, and the names are given; each name is preceded by the word "Canadian." But' evidently some persons are better informed than the Government. I hold in my hand an article signed by John Kidman, in which he speaks of Canada's Merchant Marine- and highly praises it, too. But he gives the names of fifty-three steamers, while in the answer to my question of March 11 only twenty-five were mentioned. Whether or not that is right, I do not know, but this gentleman appears to be well informed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read the names.


Georges Parent: I will read first the names of the vessels mentioned in answer to my (question of March 11. They are as follows, the word "Canadian" being prefixed in each case:
Voyageur, Pioneer, Warrior, Ranger, Recruit, Volunteer, Trader, Sailor, Trooper, Seigneur, Signaller, Miller, Adventurer, Gunner, Aviator, Sower, Navigator, Settler, Spinner, Raider, Importer, Exporter, Drummond, Sheba, Makee.
Then, here is the list given by Mr. Kidman, the name "Canadian" being prefixed in each case, as before:
Voyageur, Pioneer, Warrior, Volunteer, Trooper, Aviator, Raider, Recruit, Signaller, Gunner, Settler, Rancher, Fisher, Forester, Trapper, Hunter, Trader, Sailor, Adventurer, Sower, Mariner, Explorer, Navigator, Ranger, Seigneur, Miller, Spinner, Planter, Armourer, Composer, Beaver, Runner, Carrier, Importer, Exporter, Inventor, Prospector, Cruiser, Constructor, Sealer, Miner, Reaper, Thrasher, Otter, Squatter, Farmer, Observer, Artificer, Engineer, Victor, Conqueror, Commander, Leader. Total deadweight tonnage

They even know that much.

313,150. Total value,, 53 vessels,

That is also known, by them.

$61,233,450. Average cost per ton deadweight, $195.54.
If, Sir, you are interested to know where this statement comes from, I can tell you that it is from the Montreal Gazette Commercial and Financial Review of the Year 1919, compiled by the staff of the Gazette and printed as a supplement with the issue of January 5, 1920. On the cover there is also this statement:
Canada does more business per capita than any other country in the world.

Mr. BAl^LANTYNE: If the hon. member would allow me, perhaps we might save a little time. I am, of course, not responsible for what any publisher might print, but apparently he has given the list of ships that have been contracted for by the Government along with the ships that are in commission. That will explain the difference between the answer given to the hon. member and the reporter's statement that he has just read.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does that mean, therefore, that some ships have been contracted for that are to be paid for out of this vote?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Not at all.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then the amount of $63,000,000 is wrong.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am not accountable for a newspaper article.
Air. AleMASTER: I know that.
Air. A1ACKENZIE KING:	This amount
of $20,000,000, that we are being asked to vote is a very large sum; we have been discussing this item a long time, and I think there has been no effort on this side to obstruct, but only to elicit such information as is in the public interest. I should like to ask the minister to let the item stand for discussion at some subsequent sitting of the House. It is a large enough sum to warrant further discussion, and we ought perhaps to have a little more information as to just what the consequence would be of the item not carrying. I should like to hear from the minister just how far the programme he has in view is from completion and in what degree it would be affected if the item should not carry.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the item did not carry, of course, that would be the end ol it. While I would like very much to meet the views of the leader of the Opposition, because the Government has been met in a very fair spirit, not only by himself but by all the members opposite,-and I might say that this is not the first occasion on which they have treated this question as a national one, but they have done so at previous sessions-I gave to the best of my ability very detailed information this afternoon; we have been on this item now since half past three o'clock. Much as I should like to meet the views of the Opposition, I think we ought really to pass the item now. If there is any further information that- the leader of the Opposition or any other hon. member desires, I should be glad to give it, but we are all anxious to get through with the business of the session.


Mr. BELAND:: This is a very important item amounting to $20,000,000, one of the largest items that is submitted for our consideration. Undoubtedly, a number of hon. members who have not been present in the House this afternoon and evening may require some further information. I am sure that on this side of the House we do not want to obstruct this item in any way, but merely wish to elicit the information we require in order to justify this expenditure. The Government, therefore, should not refuse postponing until a further date the consideration of the item.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In view of the request of the leader of the Opposition and also of the genial hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), the Government will agree to postponing the discussion of this item.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 9, to incorporate Scottish Canadian Assurance Corporation.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 10, respecting The Trust and Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. Cronyn.
Bill No. 7, to incorporate The T. Eaton General Insurance Company.-Mr. Mowat.

[Stage Direction]
The House went into Committee on Bill No. 8 to incorporate the T. Eaton Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Alowat; Mr. Boiv-in in the Chair.
On the preamble.
Andrew Ross McMaster: I would like to know when the consent was-obtained for the use of the name " T. Eaton." I do not find that name among the promoters of the Bill and it seems to me that the member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) should give the Committee some assurance that the use of the name is authorized. On the face of it there is nothing to connect T. Eaton with the 'formation of the company.


Mr. MOWAT:: The incorporators, some of whom are the principal officers of the company, I am assured and am convinced, have been authorized by the T. Eaton Company to make this application. It is not likely that any general life insurance will be done by the company at all; otherwise they would choose some name of a more commercial character. I can assure the hon.

gentleman that the application is perfectly bona fide and that the incorporators have simply adopted the form of the model Bill which is in the Insurance Act. I hope the measure will be allowed to pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported, read a third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 24, to. incorporate The Pabos, Amqui and Edmundston Railway Company. -Mr. Pelletier.
Bill No. 25, respecting The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 26, respecting The Pacific Marine Insurance Company.-Mr. Stevens.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Wednesday, March 24, 1920.